I always just ignore relationships / six in video games.
I'm just here to kill stuff.
Besides I was married for 20 years...enough is enough.
I always just ignore relationships / six in video games.
I'm just here to kill stuff.
Besides I was married for 20 years...enough is enough.
Dont' know about flowers and chocolates, but the need to increase the human population after a near-extinction event WOULD be a huge motivation for "romance"....for some relationships, at least.
Ok now I hadn't have thought of that. But if the person who wrote Serana is also writing the companions for FO4 we may actually have some interesting companions and relationships.
My gosh ... there's actually hope now.
If you look at it as a fictional setting, sure. A nice romance would take the edge of the despair as well as repopulate.
I'm just not sure it works in a video game setting. But, again, I don't normally use companions. (I do always get married in Skyrim, though. Love that little shop.)
You have got to be kidding me here...
Like Good Doctor said, F3 has no world building, whatsoever.
A game doesn't have feelings, but a good game can make you feel like it has some. It just comes up to good story.
Don't overdo it with things like ''Companions choose when to work for you'' and stuff.
Make them interesting.
Many companions in all Fallout games were like this.
Exactly my point, there was a massive uproar from the boards here at the time for serana being able to marry people. Because she was one of the best written companions (arguably the best written character.....but there are some other very worthy contenders IE neloth) in the game. Beth can do it and they have done it before.
Yea your right, it was harkon's daughter.
Well, like I mentioned with companions by that other company ..... Serana has the advantage that she's tied to a decent sized chunk of storyline (the Dawnguard DLC), so you end up hanging out with her a good bit (between quests where you're stuck with her, quests where she's a source of dialogue/etc, and all the incidental stuff in between.) Which both allows her to be more fleshed out, and for you to interact with her in more meaningful/less generic ways.
Unlike the "standard" companions, who can be picked up & dropped off whenever, don't have much strong connection to any narrative, etc. More generic and shallow, since they're entirely optional.
My guess would be karma, and maybe a personal quest or two.
Yes, because Obsidian is the group of developers which forgot that people need to eat something, that machines need electricity and that there should be general lack of water considering the main plot is about lack of water . Obsidian is the studio which separated a bunch of children who survive in a cave without supplies from a bunch of super mutants by a few wooden planks. Obsidian is the game company which built the second largest civilian settlement around a live nuke. They're the ones who didn't have enough creativity to make something else but generic raiders, zombies and orcs. They're the ones who let a few critters one of which you kill when you're 10 with a bloody BB gun obliterate several armed advlts. It was their game which had golden line such as "Have you seen my dad, middle aged guy?", "I don't know why but I like you", and "[INTELLIGENCE]: So, my Pip-Boy makes me unique, and you need my help because of that".
And so much more. What were you saying?
Not to interrupt your rant but I think those were supposed to be funny.
Well they did make me laugh, but I highly doubt they were intentional. No sign or mention of that as far as I'm aware. And I wasn't ranting, it was just a list from the top of my head >.> . My angry posts like that are a tiny bit longer
I'm sure that the humor is quite deliberate. The writer could have left it at "I'm looking for my father. Can you help me?" He didn't.
[Intelligence] An Obsidian versus Bethesda argument? I'll sit this one out.
I got the feeling that some companions might become romantic with your character and others would not though and if it were just based on karma all of them would end up wanting to romance you at the same time. I hope that is not true. Adding the personal quest or two might work. Ummm, it would be sort of cool if one would like you if your intelligence was high, another might like a strong character and another an especially perceptive individual.
There are so many possibilities.
The problem there may be if we can keep playing and keep leveling all our characters can be 'master of all' (like Skyrim) and the skill of limits wouldn't matter. The only limit that could be used to cut off an NPC romance from starting would be something like Karma, which can basically only be Good, Neutral or Bad. Course even in BG2 a good person could romance Vic ... she just starts to see your POV and falls for you anyway.
[SUCCESS] Why, yes, yes I do. Very smart of you to notice.
I hope you're right. A feeling is more than I have. I like your idea for NPCs responding favorably or not according to the attributes they value most.
Now now, I'm sure it will be a purely platonic marriage of convenience. The wedding of two great lineages (vault survivor and Mr. Handy) to ensure these tribes never go to war.
Of course, an alliance like this usually demands there be heirs to cement the union. That could be tricky. Perhaps Codsworth can mop the player character's brow as she labours - to build a new Mr. Handy from spare parts, custom crafted new components and a half burned service manual.
Now, isn't that romantic?
By that logic the forum URL may as well redirect to your post...
Edit:
I personally hope there's some sort of substantive prerequisites the player has to fulfill, the problem I have with Bethesda games (specifically Fallout 3) is that they adapt to the player and not vice versa (typically), where you can feel every path mutating into the one of least resistance.
I really hope this ethos doesn't extend to the amorous relationships in the game, with every character open to every player of any sixual suasion, it feels entirely factitious...