So here's what we know: romance is confirmed for companions, except for nonhuman ones like Codsworth and Dogmeat. And gender isn't a factor in who you can romance.

...huh. That's really all we know. Anyway, a few of my own thoughts:

- It's really no big deal to me that romance goes on regardless of gender. sixual orientation rarely factors in to how the companions can be characterized, and you don't really lose momentum in a lot of romantic plots by switching the genders around. The only time in Fallout I can think of where a character's sixual orientation mattered to their identity was with Veronica, since it affected her perspective of the Brotherhood of Steel (and their perspective of her); that's a situation where they could have (and should have) totally locked any potential romance with an NPC to just one gender. But most games (and most fiction, I daresay) prove that you can build some great characters without ever going into that.

- I want lots of diversity in who we can romance, like older, uglier, or more mean-spirited characters. I'm hoping the token ghoul and synth companions are "human enough" to be eligible for romance, too - ghouls still have all of the emotional capacity of ordinary humans, and if Fallout 4 tries to play up the humanity of androids then the same goes for synths. Super mutants and intelligent deathclaws are probably out, though...

- No real gameplay implications for how you go about romance. It should be motivated by role-play alone, so we aren't encouraged to "game the system" by picking dialog options we don't care about just in order to get some romance bonuses. This ultimately applies to six, too - it definitely has a place in a romantic narrative, but if the game just sets it up so that you "win" six by making all of the right choices, it undermines the whole thing.

- I don't mind if my companion starts asking me about romance, and I can politely turn them down, but I want to be able to care about my friends without it suddenly turning into a romance I wasn't interested in. On the flipside, I don't want romance to be some indulgent mastvrbatory fantasy where everybody fawns over me regardless of what I do - jsawyer had a pretty great quote about romance in games that pretty much sums up my thoughts, wish I could find it right now.

So anyway, that's pretty much everything I care about for romance. How do you guys feel about it?

I fully expect (and hope) that the player's wedding ring is a romance toggle so that we can effectively turn romance off when traveling with a companion that we don't want to romance.

Lol, that would be a pretty clean way of making it an option - and a hilarious contrast to Skyrim's Amulet-of-Romance crap. I don't mind if my companions start expressing interest in me and I can turn them down, though, but I still want to be able to pick friendly dialog options without inadvertently falling in love with anyone.

Considering Veronica was my favorite of the New Vegas companions, I'm more of a fan of the idea of set orientations. I also would prefer it if the companions actually got a chance to take agency and be the ones that propositioned us rather than having it be exclusively the other way around. To me, it creates different kinds of love and friendship that, ideally, the game should capitalize on. From friendships that can only be friendships due to not being able to let go of the past or because of incompatible orientation, to bash brothers, vitriolic best buds, heterosixual life partners, and so on, I would hope that the game would allow you to develop multiple types of friendships with the NPCs.

As for "Role-play alone," I'm not sure what you mean, but if it's "I hit on Preston Garvey so Preston Garvey should love me," then I'm against it. Your actions and the way you treat them should play a big part in it. You shouldn't be able to romance someone after beating the crap out of them just by wearing the Amulet of Mara, and if you act counter to a companion's ideals too much, they should be locked out as a romance option (and possibly even as a companion in general).

My thoughts on this mostly came from playing Mass Effect - going through it I never felt like sixual orientation was really part of any romanceable character's identity, despite the games having gender-specific romances. Even if they had a past relationship, it never seemed like any of their qualities would be undermined by caring about gender. I brought up Veronica because that's one instance where it absolutely matters, and it would be out of character for her to suddenly fall in love with a dude.

Oh no, I'm with you completely. What I mean is, they shouldn't let us trivialize it by tying romantic choices with any gameplay bonuses or penalties. The easiest example I can give is, can you imagine how juvenile and tacky it would be if consummating your romance with a companion unlocked an achievement? That's the most extreme example I can provide, but that's the kind of things I don't want games to do with romance. (Unless it's something deliberately childish and satirical, like Grand Theft Auto.)

I just hope BGS played witcher 3 and DA inquisition so they know how to handle romances in the game.

I don't guess I have any fears about romance. It's there for the folks who want it, and I'll probably just ignore it lol

So do you consider ghoul, Super Mutant, and Synth companions to be part of the romanceable companions since only 1/3 of the companions have been announced.

Everyone bisixual is a sign that romance in this game will be generic and bland. Like in Skyrim, not like in Dragon Age. Who knows, maybe the dialogue is carefully written so he-she never says man or woman, he or she, boy or girl lol. Everyone bisixual turns this game in some kind of sixual LGBT fantasy world which doesn't fit well in the supposedly dark and harsh truth theme of Fallout but whatever.

1. I don't want to accidentally romance anyone like the first time I played Mass Effect.

2. I don't think romance in Fallout 4 will be as cookie-cutter as in Skyrim where all the dialogue was more or less the same for each gender and race (not that I'm complaining). I think Fallout 4 will be a little bit more personalized and if you're a male character and try to get it on with Preston Garvey, there'll probably be some unique dialogue for that. Maybe. I dunno.

Ahahaha, there Maximvs goes again. Lol...

My hopes are simply that there will be something for everyone to enjoy, equally. So I don't really mind if gender won't be factored in to who is a potential romance-able companion, that just means everyone gets to enjoy the romance in the game rather than miss out time and time again. Though I do prefer companions and npcs to have a defined orientation - just as long as there's something for everyone, and an equal amount of potential partners for any player.

My fears are that there won't be.

We'll see...

http://i.imgur.com/8AOcc7V.png I'm with you on both points, but I don't think romance will really change that much between genders aside from what pronouns they use.

Giving you the option to romance regardless of gender isn't really forcing any sort of agenda on you... if you don't want to romance someone for whatever reason, don't. This is just giving LGBT characters the same options as every other player character.

I think it *could* but not *that* much. It'll approach more Mass Effect-esque than Skyrim without being Mass Effect, if that makes sense.

The problem is when gay characters hit on you unprovoked and flirt with your character without you asking for it. This was something that happened when I played dragon age inquisition. Sometimes i was fast clicking though the dialouge on the second playthrough and also clicked options i didnt mean to click.I think the player should have to initiate the romance before anything happens, then everyone is happy! while I understand LGBT people play games; they represent less than 3-5% of the population. If video game companies tried to make every little community happy games would never be finished!

It seems in video games being gay/bi/lgbt whatever seems to define who the npc is and thier entire back story. I'm heterosixual and NEVER push my sixuality or talk about it to anyone because it isn't any one else's business. I dont believe in pda or talking to people about my relationship in public. No one needs things "thrown in thier face" is all. Games, movies, and shows seem to make a big deal lately out of this issue sadly...especially video games.

Dragon age inquisition, mass effect, and witcher 3 did have some positives on the romance side, but just needed some tweeks as I mentioned. I hope BGS handles it well.

Here are some of my opinions concerning the romance system. I know that this can be somewhat of an interesting topic, so I just wanted to say it’s okay to disagree. Also, sorry for the rather long post.

1. Diverse romanceable companions are a good thing. The more diversity in terms of physical characteristics (ex: young vs middle-aged vs old) and personality (ex: quirky and nerdy vs anti-social and quiet vs outgoing and loud) the better in my opinion.

2. No in-game bonuses for having a specific romanced partner. Romance shouldn’t boost a Special or give you any other bonus. I’m not adverse in the slightest to having an in-game bonus to something when a specific companion is actively following you, like in NV, but that bonus should apply the exact same whether you’re romancing them or not.

3. Romantic relationships shouldn’t be based entirely on dialogue. I don’t want a system where I can sweet talk someone who hates the suffering of innocent people, go out and slaughter a town, and then still have them care the slightest about me. I want my in-game actions and choices to have consequences on my romance options/storyline (and romance aside, on which companions will even follow me. Bethesda has thankfully implemented this to some extent in the past so I’m fairly certain it will return)

4. six shouldn’t be given as a reward. Romance shouldn’t be treated like a quest where the ultimate treasure at the end of a long journey is your partner agreeing to hook-up with you, and then the roller coaster that was your romance essentially becomes a long flat boring line now that you’ve “finally reached the ultimate plateau.” If the issue of six is brought up at all, it should be brought up in a way based upon the companion in question. Some companions should be willing to spend a night with you after only knowing you for a day, others should want a longer period of time to get to know you. A randomness setting as to when you partner is “in the mood” may also make things a bit more interesting where sometimes (after they’ve gotten very comfortable with you) they’ll just randomly approach you (not because you just completed a quest), while at other times when you approach them they’ll actually turn you down (not because you’ve done anything wrong).

5. On the issue of gender limiting your romanceable companions, I feel that while there is no perfect solution that I’ve ever seen, heard, or come up with, that I ultimately agree that having all romanceable companions be available to be romanced regardless of gender is the best choice, with the additional requirement that in the game we should encounter a diverse variety of non-romanceable characters who are clearly either heterosixual, bisixual, homosixual, etc.

For me this issue is a tough one that pulls in a variety of directions. For example we have the issue of realism where having say 10 individuals randomly selected all being bisixual, is extremely unlikely. We also have the concern that having all companions be bisixual limits their individuality and may provide a less interesting story. On the other hand we have the freedom of the player to build their own story being severely limited if they wish to make a story with a particular character as their partner, but they can’t, not because of who they are or the choices they’ve made, but because of their gender. On another hand we have the issue of diversity within the gaming world which can be severely limited if all companions are bisixual.

For me, this last issue is solved with the addition I mentioned of including other diverse characters in the world, who aren’t romanceable to anyone.
This issue of less meaningful stories and a lack of individuality by having all companions be bisixual is solved by having good writing. As BOX MAAN stated, “sixual orientation rarely factors in to how the companions can be characterized, and you don't really lose momentum in a lot of romantic plots by switching the genders around… But most games (and most fiction, I daresay) prove that you can build some great characters without ever going into that ((sixual orientation)).” As an avid fan of stories in literature, movies, television, and video games for many years, I can honestly say this is 100% true. Some great characters are greatly defined by their sixual orientation (and the challenges they face because of it), but there are also an enormous number of great characters whose sixual orientation could be changed and you’d barely notice a difference.

Finally we have the issue of realism. If the choice comes down to more player freedom to tell the story they want versus a more realistic game, the deciding factor, in my opinion, should be: How important is romance to the central game itself? If your game is chiefly concerned with providing players a bunch of different playstyles as they go throughout a wasteland full of dangers while they make their own story, then you shouldn’t give the players the ability to use every single type of playstyle from the get go in the same game. Basically, we shouldn’t have a 10 in all Specials and also have half the perks chosen by level 15 thus allowing us to complete the overwhelming majority of the game in any playstyle we choose with amazing effectiveness in each one. Limiting the player to choosing a limited playstyle allows them to replay the game in a drastically different way if they choose to. This is a good thing. Additionally, if your game is chiefly concerned about making your own romantic story, you really shouldn’t be allowed to romance everyone in the same game since that would kill replayability. However in each case, the replayability of the game would barely be hurt in any noticeable way if you put in there an optional, unimportant, non-main game effecting mechanism that’s completely open to the player in an entirely unrealistic way.

Taking it from the other side, just how much is replayability enhanced by limiting romanceable companions by gender? For the romance game, it’s enhanced by a huge amount. For Fallout 4? Well, I’m fairly certain that around 99.99% of the game would be the exact same… doing almost nothing to enhance replayability. As such, while still not a perfect solution, I firmly think that in a game like Fallout where romance isn’t central to the main game, the benefits of increasing player freedom to make their own story far outweigh the cons generated by the lack of realism in this one small part of the game.

New Vegas gave 2 perks. Although, the second perk was strictly for the companion which made the companion more unique based on which decision you made instead of the companion being completely identical to previous gameplays.

So... they didn't flirt with you 'unprovoked?'

I hope the romances come with actual characters and not cardboard cutouts that dispense bonuses when you click on them. I would've romanced someone in New Vegas if the option was present, I did not romance anyone in Skyrim cuz they all svcked balls. And not the fun kind.

[quote name="Fredward" post="24343210" timestamp="1443419385"]
So... they didn't flirt with you 'unprovoked?'


There are times when they flirt with you unprovoked when dialouge first begins before you click on anything!

As i said there were times scrolling through dialogue quickly though in later playthroughs where the first option was for a gay flirt... Not a separate option where you click on the word "romance" then flirt... It was like the first line in the dialouge... So if you just want to get through dialouge to get a quest all yhe sudden that character wants you if you click too fast and mess up.I think one of the DAI writing team leads is LGBT so wanted to make it super prevalent in the game.

Yes that's correct. I enjoyed how NV handled their companion perks. I was just trying to say that like in NV, the perks shouldn't be tied to romance in any way, in my opinion. I have no problem with the perks companions attained/give you depending on if they're following you and the quests you complete.

The only person who evilly gayflirts with you against your will is Dorian and he flirts with everyone. Every other time the flirt option is clearly marked with a giant pink heart, it's hard to miss. If you choose to skip through dialogue and randomly pick options though the game will remember and bring it up later, that's on you.

Has it really been confirmed that you can't romance Codsworth or Dogmeat?

:*(

Seriously, though, romances in video games never are written well, and Bethesda's famous for having terrible writing already; I'm not expecting much from the romancing in this game. It'll probably wind up similar to Skyrim.

EDIT: Also, I'm totally not going to romance anyone who was not my character's spouse at the start of the game; I mean, the game occurs a few subjective months at most after the protagonist saw their entire world get blown up (possibly along with spouse and infant child)? That's too soon to go searching for a new person to have the sixytimes with.

I'm not. That decision would make me decidedly unhappy, because I would rather the characters be allowed to show some agency in who they want to pursue a relationship with rather than being treated as objects that we win. That's also why I want a RNG to be in the game to help determine if the character develops feelings for us, so that they can/will turn you down, even if you did everything "right."

I like the idea of the ring being a toggle, and it makes sense. If you got that ring on, you're still holding on to hope that your wife and kid are out there somewhere. Or just not wanting to bother with romance, either way works.

I like the idea of NPC agency, but I'm not so big on RNG. I see the point of it, but it would just be arbitrary and pointlessly inconsistent.

This sounds ok on paper, but it devolves into the tedium of meeting bullet points on a laundry list that might trigger them to proposition you. In the first play through it works because you go into it blind, but afterwards you know exactly what the triggers are. That's particularly why I don't like the way companion "loyalty" side quests were done in FNV.

Go there. Trigger. Go here. Trigger. Go here. Ok Bitter Springs time.