Companion Romance Yes or No???

TheMajority · June 19

Really see a issue here that has been on this forum for a long time. It's hard to put into English, but I'll try-

There's people here who don't really understand the difference between playing themself and playing a character. When people say they want romance for companions, it is not because THEY as a real person want a romance, it's cause they want to tell a story about THEIR CHARACTER romancing THE COMPANION. They aren't expecting to go marry the computer :P

It was the same in the AWA arguments. People would go "You do realize it's you doing a achievement right, everything is you?" and people were like, no duh it's ourself, but we are like writers telling a story about the character we play, playing out that story, so they wanted each achievements separate for each individual. Not because they thought characters was real people or whatever, but because it was SEPARATE CHARACTERS in their STORY they were creating through gameplay.

Same thing here. People aren't pairing THEMSELF with the companion, and the character they play IS NOT THEMSELF. They want to play out the story between TWO CHARACTERS.

I don't get how somebody doesn't understand this, but maybe they never did played pretend as a kid and don't know how to pretend now with characters.

Jaimeh · June 19

I wouldn't want for this to be the main new feature/system of a chapter update, but as a smaller feature, that is optional to participate in, I wouldn't mind them adding it for the players who'd like it.

CalamityCat · June 19

Syldras wrote: »

CalamityCat wrote: »

It's really not like a romance novel though. In a novel you have characters that are capable of having romantic encounters with each other in situations where romance is actually happening. A person having a "romance" with a computer game character is not a romance. The computer cannot have feelings, it just runs code. All it is doing is what it has been programmed to do. That couldn't be further from romance than having a "relationship" with a teapot!

It would be our fictional character having a romance with another fictional character in a story taking place in Tamriel. I don't see any big difference to a novel, except for it might be more interactive because of dialogue choices.

I'm afraid I can't suspend my sense of reality enough to believe a computer companion is capable of "romance"

It just isn't the same.

spartaxoxo · June 19

CalamityCat wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

CalamityCat wrote: »

It's really not like a romance novel though. In a novel you have characters that are capable of having romantic encounters with each other in situations where romance is actually happening. A person having a "romance" with a computer game character is not a romance. The computer cannot have feelings, it just runs code. All it is doing is what it has been programmed to do. That couldn't be further from romance than having a "relationship" with a teapot!

It would be our fictional character having a romance with another fictional character in a story taking place in Tamriel. I don't see any big difference to a novel, except for it might be more interactive because of dialogue choices.

I'm afraid I can't suspend my sense of reality enough to believe a computer companion is capable of "romance" It just isn't the same.

I personally think the person who is living in reality is the one that doesn't view romance in video games as romance between a computer and real life human being but rather as a story about two fictional characters.

It's easy for me to enjoy romance in video games and I like AWA because I am well aware that I am NOT the Vestige. The Vestige is not real. I'm not in Tamriel. I'm not saving Nirn. None of those places exist.

Players are acting out a fake story with fake characters in a make believe fantasy land for funsies. The Vestige being in love with Fennorian doesn't mean that Spartaxoxo is. I mean Spartaxoxo isn't even real either. There's a lot more to my actual human life than I share in a video game. It's a username I use to play video games and talk about video games with like minded individuals. I think too many people conflate social media games with real life. We put a piece of ourselves online but not the full picture.

karthrag_inak · June 19

Please, dark moons, no.

Just seeing the crap they added to Razum Dar's dialog options....this one found the very idea patently offensive. Of course, Raz is sleek khajiit so naturally he must be everyone's snuggle bunny.

This one has dealt with that as well on numerous occasions, and finds it intolerable! It is racist, derogatorily and demeaning, and this one will not have it! Stop grabbing khajiit's tail, ma'am!

Fischblut · June 19

Well, at least there's player homes to keep any shenanigans private...

I laughed way too much at the awkward result of my Witcher and Ember the Sorceress getting a room

Things are possible, but in current implementation it looks like a black humor comedy - companion is always in random idle animation (Ember's random lightning show was peak), never moving to appropriate place (can't even sit on a chair), can't perform emotes on demand etc.

For me, it would be enough for my companion to perform emotes/use mementos from my Collections and move to places at my command. Dialogues would be nice, but not important - I roleplay mostly visually, so the picture of my character and his/her companion should look good

Also, companions need to look at our character if we are at their line of sight! My character looks at the companion if cursor is on them, but companion just follows it's own pattern of head movement.
Few months ago I accidentally got a few minutes during which Ember was actually "seeing" my character and moving her head as he walked in front of her

It was too nice!

Of course, more customization such as hats/polymorphs/skins/personalities would be perfect! For example, my Molag Bal would spend some quality time with Xivkyn-polymorphed servant.

It took me unnecessary many tries to do even such simple roleplay as this:

AcadianPaladin · June 19

I would settle for being able to bring my companion into my home with me (not some silly mannequin of my companion). I can bring my darn bear into my home, why not my companion?

Regarding romance, I suppose it would be a nice addition to the game. That said, none of the companions (or 'popular' NPCs) spark any romantic interest for my elf.

I'd rather be able to put headgear on my companion like circlets or hats or perhaps even change their hairstyles.

Mathius_Mordred · June 19

I just feel like this will sadly never happen, we've been talking about it for years, nothing comes of it, I bet this post won't even get a moderator response, it's not on their radar or something would have been done by now. Sadly they don't realise that tapping into one of our most basic needs for companionship can also help keep people playing the game, and could even be monetised. Hack and slashing is fine, murder is fine, but romance and sex is bad, a weird and a very typically hypocritcal American way of looking at the entertainment industry in general.

Vaqual · June 20

I would still like them to do it, but I am not sure if they have it in them to write characters that are generically likeable enough.
If only there was an infallible archetype of the pale human female variety...
Might be cheap, might be cheesy, but 100 % effective.

Syldras · June 20

CalamityCat wrote: »

I'm afraid I can't suspend my sense of reality enough to believe a computer companion is capable of "romance" It just isn't the same.

I think most people are capable of understanding what is fiction and what is reality and don't expect them to be the same. In some cases I'd say fortunately so, since I see characters running around assassinating whole towns in ESO.

JemadarofCaerSalis · June 20

CalamityCat wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

CalamityCat wrote: »

I'd rather just have companions who want to be friends and travel with me.

How can you even have "romance" with a computer game character who has zero choice in the matter?

The same way that romance novels have existed for as long as fiction novels. In fact, one of the very first novels ever written is a romance novel. The Tale of Genji by Murasaki Shikabu. It is only the first novel by a woman to have won global recognition. Video game characters are not real so this concern about their "consent" is disingenuous. They'd obviously write the story to be consensual.

It's really not like a romance novel though. In a novel you have characters that are capable of having romantic encounters with each other in situations where romance is actually happening. A person having a "romance" with a computer game character is not a romance. The computer cannot have feelings, it just runs code. All it is doing is what it has been programmed to do. That couldn't be further from romance than having a "relationship" with a teapot!

I'm not really talking about consent above, simply that it isn't romantic when your game "partner" has no way to choose what they do or consent, because they're just graphics and lines of code. Companions have to follow us around and follow commands. Romance requires actual sentient beings who can have feelings about you and are capable of understanding what romance actually is and acting upon it. Or refusing it.

Then you don't have to do the romance options.

However, for many people they take the 'role playing' part of 'role playing games' seriously and use their imagination to 'bring the characters to life' just the same as when someone reads a romance novel and brings the characters there to 'life' through imagination. You don't think that millions of fans of romance novels don't insert themselves into the role of the main character and thus feel as if they are the ones being romanced? (or doing the romance depending on the novel)

Characters in a novel are just words on a page and have no more capability of having feelings than a computer. All the characters are doing in the novel are what the writer wrote them to do. Same as a programmer writing the computer code for the computer to execute.

That character in the novel is no more capable of saying no than the character in a computer game. Because at the end of the day they are BOTH figments of someone's imagination and thus are doing exactly what the person who thought them up is telling them to do.

JemadarofCaerSalis · June 20

spartaxoxo wrote: »

CalamityCat wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

CalamityCat wrote: »

It's really not like a romance novel though. In a novel you have characters that are capable of having romantic encounters with each other in situations where romance is actually happening. A person having a "romance" with a computer game character is not a romance. The computer cannot have feelings, it just runs code. All it is doing is what it has been programmed to do. That couldn't be further from romance than having a "relationship" with a teapot!

It would be our fictional character having a romance with another fictional character in a story taking place in Tamriel. I don't see any big difference to a novel, except for it might be more interactive because of dialogue choices.

I'm afraid I can't suspend my sense of reality enough to believe a computer companion is capable of "romance" It just isn't the same.

I personally think the person who is living in reality is the one that doesn't view romance in video games as romance between a computer and real life human being but rather as a story about two fictional characters.

It's easy for me to enjoy romance in video games and I like AWA because I am well aware that I am NOT the Vestige. The Vestige is not real. I'm not in Tamriel. I'm not saving Nirn. None of those places exist.

Players are acting out a fake story with fake characters in a make believe fantasy land for funsies. The Vestige being in love with Fennorian doesn't mean that Spartaxoxo is. I mean Spartaxoxo isn't even real either. There's a lot more to my actual human life than I share in a video game. It's a username I use to play video games and talk about video games with like minded individuals. I think too many people conflate social media games with real life. We put a piece of ourselves online but not the full picture.

Exactly this.

I play a male character in all games that I can. I am not a male character, nor do I want to be a man. I just like playing male characters (hey, I want eye candy while playing :P). My name is not Jemadar of Caer Salis, or Tavin Bellansour or Arien or any of the myriad other names I tend to use in games/online. Not even close to them.

My characters being in love with other characters is not me being in love with those characters, I actually have come to the conclusion that I don't want romance/relationships in real life. I still like reading about them.

I can easily understand the difference between my character, Jemadar or Tavin or Arien or whoever, engaging in a romance with an NPC that I like how they were written and *my* being interested in engaging with those same characters the same way. I assure you, I am not. At this point, I am not sure that my character would be interested in any of the current companions. Sure, there are some nice ones, but not any that he would really want to romance. (which leads me to another thing I would like to see with romance if it came to the game: If these are quests that give some sort of perk/extra XP/something special, then allow two endings: one where the companion is now in a romance with the PC, and one where they can have the same outcome, but instead basically declare undying friendship. That way people don't have to romance multiple companions, if that is even possible, to get the most out of that particular companion.)

When I read a novel, I often place myself in it, not necessarily as a replacement character, but just in the novel itself. However, I understand that the novel is not real. Nothing that happens in the Elder Scrolls is real. I did not go to Vvardenfell on a prison boat. I was not imprisoned for some crime under Cyrodiil and met the Emperor and was given an important task. I did not get caught crossing the border into Skyrim and was thus slated for execution before a dragon attacked and basically saved me. (you know, ES seems to have a theme about character beginnings. If I recall, I was ALSO imprisoned in Arena when I first started and had to make my way out of the prison. Never played Daggerfall, so don't know how that started)

That doesn't mean that when given a chance I didn't add companions to morrowind (where Jemadar of Caer Salis and Tavin Bellansour came from, they were companions a friend and I created and, she named, for our main characters). (Oblivion is the game I remember the least so can't remember whether they had romance or not). I always romance Vilkas in Skyrim.

It is just another aspect of the characters I am playing, and has nothing to do with me romancing a computer character, because I am not.

metheglyn · June 20

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

(you know, ES seems to have a theme about character beginnings. If I recall, I was ALSO imprisoned in Arena when I first started and had to make my way out of the prison. Never played Daggerfall, so don't know how that started)

Always, always a prisoner and an outsider.

I don't have anything to add otherwise; you make some excellent points (as usual!) and I agree with them.

SilverBride · June 20

I would like my characters to have life partners they can adventure with and come home to. My Arcanist already has a close working and personal relationship with Azandar, who is her mentor and who she became very fond of after working so close together. They each have their separate homes but do spend time together at Earthtear Cavern on occasion just to relax and enjoy each other's company.

I don't want to roleplay romantic interactions, but an a occasional loving comment now and then would be nice.

johnbonne · June 20

colossalvoids wrote: »

Wonder how many people asking for the feature would be ultimately disappointed by execution or sheer shallowness of the options compared to other games they have an option to. We already know capabilities of their writing, it's not that hard to imagine how it would look like and if that's something even of a mild interest. Even new dialogue options are kinda a fat hint to whatever it can look like already.

My thoughts exactly. I'm not opposed to romances in games, but when it's been proven that the writing and voice acting/direction can't do anything else justice, it just seems like a waste of time. That said, I am a big softie so maybe I could warm to some cringeworthy mushiness that would be more endearing in this game, because let's face it, romance isn't always laser precise lines that hit deep every time, and if anything it would probably be out of place in this particular ES game.

On a somewhat related tangent, we've just seen the biggest voice actors strike in video gaming history come to a(n almost) complete end. I imagine ZOS will be watching the coffers carefully when it comes to deciding what they allocate funds for voice acting to.

This is before we even get into activities to do together as companions to unwind and bond over. Sorry, but putting Every1's a Winner on after defeating Xigulruud the Unmaker in a musty undercroft isn't exactly my idea of a good first date.

ghastley · June 20

Just to throw the curve ball, why should the companion not have a relationship with an NPC, rather than the Vestige? E.g male Vestige with Isobel as companion could find her replacing Aurelia with another crush (not Lyris).

CalamityCat · June 20

spartaxoxo wrote: »

CalamityCat wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

CalamityCat wrote: »

It's really not like a romance novel though. In a novel you have characters that are capable of having romantic encounters with each other in situations where romance is actually happening. A person having a "romance" with a computer game character is not a romance. The computer cannot have feelings, it just runs code. All it is doing is what it has been programmed to do. That couldn't be further from romance than having a "relationship" with a teapot!

It would be our fictional character having a romance with another fictional character in a story taking place in Tamriel. I don't see any big difference to a novel, except for it might be more interactive because of dialogue choices.

I'm afraid I can't suspend my sense of reality enough to believe a computer companion is capable of "romance" It just isn't the same.

I personally think the person who is living in reality is the one that doesn't view romance in video games as romance between a computer and real life human being but rather as a story about two fictional characters.

No, it's understanding that you are using your imagination to create that feeling of connection and romance between your character and the game character.

It's not the random dialogue from the companion that is being romantic. It is you and your imagination filling in the gaps and creating enough detail that it feels believable. Hence why I say the computer code isn't being romantic. Because you as the player are doing that. The companion is just spitting out dialogue based on a coded script with timers.

That is the reality. It in no way dismisses that players have crushes and genuinely care about fictional characters in a game or story. It is just what it is. I have connected and been caught up in the story with many many characters in games over the years, done roleplaying with some amazing players. But I still know a clunky random dialogue companion isn't romantic.

Someone else's romantic lines simply won't work on my characters. The constant companion "romance" chatter is guaranteed to be immersion breaking. Because it isn't written for my character specifically. So all the time I'm trying to enjoy time with a companion with my very different characters, that companion talks the same way to all of them. My characters aren't generic enough to work with that.

Put it another way, if a character says nothing then it is far easier for the player to imagine the companion talking to them in a way that is romantic for the player's character.

If the same character has a pre-written scripted dialogue, you'll need to get very lucky for that dialogue to resonate with your specific character. It is far more likely that you lose immersion because that dialogue is repeatedly kicking in and it distracts you from what you're trying to imagine. Or you know your character would punch anyone who spoke to her in such a way. Etc etc.

spartaxoxo · June 20

CalamityCat wrote: »

It's not the random dialogue from the companion that is being romantic. It is you and your imagination filling in the gaps and creating enough detail that it feels believable. Hence why I say the computer code isn't being romantic. Because you as the player are doing that. The companion is just spitting out dialogue based on a coded script with timers.

Romeo didn't spit out all that dialogue either. Shakespeare did. Romeo is no different than Bastian in that particular regard, other than being better written. They're both entirely fictional men.

Romance options in video game stories are no different to romance novels. Romantic fiction is a normal thing to enjoy and yes it is romantic. That's the appeal. Finding Romeo and Juliette to be a tragic romance doesn't mean the reader is genuinely in love with Romeo. Finding Always Be My Maybe to be romantic and fun doesn't mean you believe that you're genuinely in love with Marcus. And enjoying the romantic storyline of Astarion in BG3 doesn't mean you're in love with him. Not everyone is inserting themselves into the game so hard that they can't appreciate a storyline for what it is.

If the same character has a pre-written scripted dialogue, you'll need to get very lucky for that dialogue to resonate with your specific character. It is far more likely that you lose immersion because that dialogue is repeatedly kicking in and it distracts you from what you're trying to imagine. Or you know your character would punch anyone who spoke to her in such a way. Etc etc.

I can't relate because I'm not the Vestige. I'm interested in seeing how The Vestige would fall in love. I have no rl crushes on video game characters and don't fantasize in my head extra dialogue. I'm not using my imagination to do that. I'm listening to the stories the game tells me and try to stay within that framework.

It would not offend me or break my immersion to see it play it differently than I had in my head because I don't do that sort of roleplay and instead enjoy the stories for what they are. I only get immersion broke if they write the stories poorly.

If there's a quest that doesn't fit with my character. I just don't do that quest on that character.

CalamityCat · June 20

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Then you don't have to do the romance options.

However, for many people they take the 'role playing' part of 'role playing games' seriously and use their imagination to 'bring the characters to life' just the same as when someone reads a romance novel and brings the characters there to 'life' through imagination. You don't think that millions of fans of romance novels don't insert themselves into the role of the main character and thus feel as if they are the ones being romanced? (or doing the romance depending on the novel)

The characters I play in ESO were created in another game around 1998. They have done many many hours of roleplay in various games over the years. So I don't need to have roleplaying explained to me. It is because my characters are properly established in my mind that I know companion romance isn't going to work for many people. A generic random dialogue script isn't going to match up with the wide range of RP personalities that players create. As I've said in a previous post, that dialogue would fully break immersion for most of my characters. If the companion said nothing, that would give my characters the blank space to imagine a far better connection or romance if I wanted that.

I fully understand how romance works in stories. It's not random dialogue from an NPC companion. The author knows their character like a RPer does. They write a story where those characters respond to each other specifically. Not with generic dialogue. A skilled author really fleshes out main characters and then considers how each character would respond or speak in the situations they create. Their writing works because they are creating interactions between very specific characters who we believe have a genuine connection.

Characters in a novel are just words on a page and have no more capability of having feelings than a computer. All the characters are doing in the novel are what the writer wrote them to do. Same as a programmer writing the computer code for the computer to execute.

That character in the novel is no more capable of saying no than the character in a computer game. Because at the end of the day they are BOTH figments of someone's imagination and thus are doing exactly what the person who thought them up is telling them to do.

I've never said companions need to consent in the way we do in RL. Simply that the character of that companion has no believable romantic connection to the player's character. There is no fictional agency where they are choosing to be with you. Hence me saying they have no choice. They don't. They're a summoned NPC in a computer game. You summon them, do what you like with them and that's it.

the90thmeridian · June 20

Waseem wrote: »

JamesDax3 wrote: »

Bring this up again since it appears that this hasn't been talked since 2023. What's going on with this? Why hasn't this become a thing yet? What's the word ZOS?

You want to bang your companion?

hell yeah

JamesDax3 · June 20

Waseem wrote: »

JamesDax3 wrote: »

Bring this up again since it appears that this hasn't been talked since 2023. What's going on with this? Why hasn't this become a thing yet? What's the word ZOS?

You want to bang your companion?

Don't be ignorant.

JemadarofCaerSalis · June 20

CalamityCat wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Then you don't have to do the romance options.

However, for many people they take the 'role playing' part of 'role playing games' seriously and use their imagination to 'bring the characters to life' just the same as when someone reads a romance novel and brings the characters there to 'life' through imagination. You don't think that millions of fans of romance novels don't insert themselves into the role of the main character and thus feel as if they are the ones being romanced? (or doing the romance depending on the novel)

The characters I play in ESO were created in another game around 1998. They have done many many hours of roleplay in various games over the years. So I don't need to have roleplaying explained to me. It is because my characters are properly established in my mind that I know companion romance isn't going to work for many people. A generic random dialogue script isn't going to match up with the wide range of RP personalities that players create. As I've said in a previous post, that dialogue would fully break immersion for most of my characters. If the companion said nothing, that would give my characters the blank space to imagine a far better connection or romance if I wanted that.

I fully understand how romance works in stories. It's not random dialogue from an NPC companion. The author knows their character like a RPer does. They write a story where those characters respond to each other specifically. Not with generic dialogue. A skilled author really fleshes out main characters and then considers how each character would respond or speak in the situations they create. Their writing works because they are creating interactions between very specific characters who we believe have a genuine connection.

Characters in a novel are just words on a page and have no more capability of having feelings than a computer. All the characters are doing in the novel are what the writer wrote them to do. Same as a programmer writing the computer code for the computer to execute.

That character in the novel is no more capable of saying no than the character in a computer game. Because at the end of the day they are BOTH figments of someone's imagination and thus are doing exactly what the person who thought them up is telling them to do.

I've never said companions need to consent in the way we do in RL. Simply that the character of that companion has no believable romantic connection to the player's character. There is no fictional agency where they are choosing to be with you. Hence me saying they have no choice. They don't. They're a summoned NPC in a computer game. You summon them, do what you like with them and that's it.

The fact that companion romance has become an almost staple in many games would say, to me, that a great many people like the ability to romance characters, even if the characters won't necessarily respond the way they think, or that THEIR characters can't respond the way they want.

Again, if the dialogue would break immersion, then simply don't do the romance options. It is as simple as that. There have been many times when I have had a companion speaking over what other people are saying, or I have heard the same tired line time after time after time, which also breaks immersion. Isn't there an option to turn off companion random dialogue. There are also many other times when followers are constantly speaking to me, calling me 'friend' even if we just met, or other placeholders for names, or telling me what to do when I *already* KNOW what to do. Again, that breaks immersion for me. I don't like being treated as a particularly dense child who has to be lead around, but that is how followers often treat me (by telling me to use an item in my inventory, or telling me something that someone just said, or having to let someone tell me something I already figured out)

Beyond that, the dialogue the companion speaks would be no more random than the lines Romeo spoke, because someone, somewhere, wrote them to say those lines at those particular junctions. Just because they wouldn't fit your particular view of how the companion would react doesn't mean that they wouldn't fit how others would feel the companion would react.

If it is about your character being able to react to the companion, then that has been an ongoing issue for a while, and there have been many times I have just had to tune out the options that my character is saying and just go with my own idea.

I don't see the point of the whole 'consent' argument. These are fictional characters. None of them consent to ANYTHING we do. Bastian isn't 'happy to see me', because he doesn't exist. I can stand around and summon and dismiss him and he would be happy to travel with me no matter how many times I summon him. Even if I do everything that gains negative rapport and makes it so he auto dismisses, from what I read, I just have to wait a bit, resummon him and he is again going to travel with me. Even if he is at the lowest rapport he can have. He can't 'consent' to travel with me. Even if I become someone who blades of Woe every single NPC I can in his presence, he still has to travel with me. If I strip a town down to the furniture, he still has to travel with me, despite him hating thieves.

Same with every other companion/follower out there. They have no agency at all, and can't 'consent' to anything the player already does, so why is 'romance' any different?

Beyond that, it also comes down to a simple thing of is you personally don't like romance in games, then don't use the romance options. I have seen several people say they don't like companions, but nothing is making them use the companions, so them not liking companions shouldn't mean that OTHER people can't have companions with them, and, at least in my opinion, you not wanting to do the romance options shouldn't mean other people who do want the romance options shouldn't be able to have them.

I do agree with others concerns about how the romance might be too shallow considering the recent writing in the game, but I am hoping that they would do the companions justice.

But I never truly understood the whole 'consent' argument (and I have seen it brought up before) when these are fictional characters. Of course they don't have agency, they are written to do exactly what their creators want them to do. Companions might have a bit more illusion of agency due to a bunch of if/then type statements (rapport and if PC does X then rapport does Y) and an AI system for battle, but at the end of the day Bastien is no different than Romeo. They were both written to do certain things, and they are going to do those certain things no matter what.

whitecrow · June 20

I just can't imagine how this could be done well.

soelslaev · June 20

Let's see. I ran across Mirri while out adventuring, she offered to tag along, and I thought, "Sure, why not? Let's try this out." Soon enough I was pouring lots of my time into her and adjusting me behavior to get her approval. Then, after she was very advanced from all the effort I had put into her, and I had learned to resist the long established habit of picking bugs out of the air, I went out alone without her by chance. And after a while I realized that I can pick bugs again. And the relief I felt was reminiscent of PTSD recovery. And I abandoned her and never looked back. A long time later, I summoned her back for a brief event, confirmed to myself it wasn't worth it, then went my own way again.

So, ESO relationships seem to match all of my real life relationships. The devs have nailed romance, as far as I can tell.

CalamityCat · June 20

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

The fact that companion romance has become an almost staple in many games would say, to me, that a great many people like the ability to romance characters, even if the characters won't necessarily respond the way they think, or that THEIR characters can't respond the way they want.

Again, if the dialogue would break immersion, then simply don't do the romance options. It is as simple as that. There have been many times when I have had a companion speaking over what other people are saying, or I have heard the same tired line time after time after time, which also breaks immersion. Isn't there an option to turn off companion random dialogue. There are also many other times when followers are constantly speaking to me, calling me 'friend' even if we just met, or other placeholders for names, or telling me what to do when I *already* KNOW what to do. Again, that breaks immersion for me. I don't like being treated as a particularly dense child who has to be lead around, but that is how followers often treat me (by telling me to use an item in my inventory, or telling me something that someone just said, or having to let someone tell me something I already figured out)

Honestly I have no issue with others responding differently to a game romance situation or how it feels for them. I've been fortunate to have great RP with other players, so an NPC's random dialogue really doesn't resonate enough for me to feel any level of romance. Friendship and camaraderie is far enough for me.

Beyond that, the dialogue the companion speaks would be no more random than the lines Romeo spoke, because someone, somewhere, wrote them to say those lines at those particular junctions. Just because they wouldn't fit your particular view of how the companion would react doesn't mean that they wouldn't fit how others would feel the companion would react.

If it is about your character being able to react to the companion, then that has been an ongoing issue for a while, and there have been many times I have just had to tune out the options that my character is saying and just go with my own idea.

It is absolutely about the fit for individual players. Agreed. I'm just not convinced it'll resonate with many players if it's so generic.

But I never truly understood the whole 'consent' argument (and I have seen it brought up before) when these are fictional characters. Of course they don't have agency, they are written to do exactly what their creators want them to do. Companions might have a bit more illusion of agency due to a bunch of if/then type statements (rapport and if PC does X then rapport does Y) and an AI system for battle, but at the end of the day Bastien is no different than Romeo. They were both written to do certain things, and they are going to do those certain things no matter what.

Again, I don't mean consent in how we have RL relationships. I'm 100% aware that a fictional character is fictional. It's just that for me a companion is more like a hired help that we call upon to help us around the game. Obviously they have a story quest where they then join you for adventures, but I'm still dragging mine around behind me most of the time! I know they'd hate some of the things my characters do, this is why they are regularly 'put away' so they don't scold my characters for doing those things!

Again, this is not like RL consent. I would never trivialise consent by saying it's the same. But I also wouldn't trivialise romance. IMHO romance requires some belief that characters would actually like each other. I'm fully aware that some gamers don't care one iota about that, but we're all different.

LPapirius · June 20

No thank you. There are other games that specialize in this kind of thing. ESO is supposed to be about combat and battle and stuff like that.

JemadarofCaerSalis · June 20

Just want to touch upon the idea of 'consent' and a game somehow being different from any other type of media.

My character that I play is generally a good person, they don't believe in unnecessary killing, or stealing unless they know the person won't be harmed. They believe in helping everyone they can.

However, my player character can't 'give consent' to anything I do. If left up to him, the Dark Brotherhood and Thieves Guild quest lines would have never gotten done, because those aren't generally aligned with his moral values. However, because *I*, as the player, wanted the rewards for doing the quest lines, my character did the quests. Neither my character nor I like the Stibbons and Laurent quests, but because we want the rewards, we do them.

How is me forcing my character, again someone who is completely made up in my imagination, to do things that would be against his character's personality, really any different from someone else giving *their* character romance options that *my character* can trigger through various dialogues? Neither character has any agency, as they are only extensions of a person's imagination and both characters can only do what they are directed to do, one by me moving the mouse and pressing keys and the other through someone writing some code that can be activated by me pressing the keys and moving the mouse.

Neither is really any different than Shakespeare 'forcing' Juliet to fake her own death and Romeo to mistakenly believe she is actually dead. Neither character had any 'agency' in that scene and were only doing what a writer 'coded' them to do.

The only differences are that one is between two characters written by the same person and will always happen no matter how many times someone reads that story, and game romances are between two characters written by two different people, and that the 'romance' option is optionally triggered. (hopefully)

Edit: Wrote this before I saw the other reply.

The thing is, since the companions already have to be willing to travel with any gender/race available, none of them have any biases against any of them. That is, to me, one of the biggest hurdles to 'realistic' romance, because most people often DO have preferences.

But, that is already out of the question here. So the next would be personalities clashing and there is already a mechanic in game for preventing romances from happening between two characters that have different world views: Rapport.

IE, romance can either be triggered only with positive rapport, so that if the companion doesn't like you, but is still willing to travel, they will still be open to romance, or it can only be triggered at max positive rapport, which often already has wording that implies that the companion would be open to a romance as they think you are the best thing since sweetrolls.

With the rapport system there could also be consequences for having a romance with a character and losing significant amounts of rapport.

Bastian believes you to be brave and true, a real friend.
Mirri sees you as part of her family.
Ember thinks you've changed her life, for the better.
Isobel regards you as her very best friend.
Azandar is planning long-term research plans with you. Prepare yourself.
Sharp trusts you completely.
Tanlorin sees you as their best friend. Hands down. No contest.
Zerith is eternally grateful for his second life. It's where he met you.

While some of these aren't quite as 'romantic' as others, they all indicate to me that all the companions wouldn't be adverse to taking the next step with you, from close friend to more romantic partnerships

BretonMage · June 20

CalamityCat wrote: »

IMHO romance requires some belief that characters would actually like each other. I'm fully aware that some gamers don't care one iota about that, but we're all different.

I feel that the companions really like my character though. Zerith in particular is very expressive about his appreciation for the Vestige, and I feel that Azandar too deeply appreciates my character in his own special way. It would feel very natural to me if they were given a quest where they started to develop affection for my character.

spartaxoxo · June 20

CalamityCat wrote: »

Again, this is not like RL consent. I would never trivialise consent by saying it's the same. But I also wouldn't trivialise romance. IMHO romance requires some belief that characters would actually like each other. I'm fully aware that some gamers don't care one iota about that, but we're all different.

But there IS belief that the characters would actually like each other. They would be written to have that agency. The reason romance in video games is popular because the characters ARE generally written with agency. They are written using the same tropes and other building blocks as any other piece of fiction. Each of the companions go through very important moments with you character from a narrative standpoint. And you can track just how much the character is written to like your character using the rapport feature. The more you do with that companion the greater that affection grows.

At max rapport, the companions consider you a best friend.

CalamityCat · June 20

BretonMage wrote: »

CalamityCat wrote: »

IMHO romance requires some belief that characters would actually like each other. I'm fully aware that some gamers don't care one iota about that, but we're all different.

I feel that the companions really like my character though. Zerith in particular is very expressive about his appreciation for the Vestige, and I feel that Azandar too deeply appreciates my character in his own special way. It would feel very natural to me if they were given a quest where they started to develop affection for my character.

The interactions I have with my companions yeah, they talk like they like me. But only because they don't know what my character just did in Grahtwood

Though you could imagine some romance where your character is secretly off out assassinating characters, then comes home and acts like the perfect partner with the companion.