We need more sexual encounters
fusedmass
Banned
I'm not asking you throw in a prono. If its possible to meet a girl, you build up a point of trust till your naked under te sun, caressing each other naked body's...Why cant you make a girlfriend. You can shoot a thousand zombies but you can't make a sl
where i get to 2nd base.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Imo that's time wasted unnecessarily on something most people won't agree with or enjoy - if it's a you-must-do-this-for-real-cant-go-further-if-you-don't kind of thing. Y would you want a naked booty in the middle of a story about zombies and survival, and nahah - babies aren't survival , you can reproduce after hell is over, you wouldn't want that baby to go zombie on you just because there's no heat in winter.
Interesting enough, It can be about the story or a side quest. I think many would want this as an option. I'm not asking girls to strip down on a poll and dollar bills placed in their g string. However..romance storylines. It's apart of most good story's. I just don't understand the hate.
I loved getting to know companions i could romance, and I still spoke to them after we had romance encounter.
Again, you can blow off a guys head.
But romance..goes too far
I think you're looking for a different kind of game mate...
You should try Leisure Suit Larry, the whole game series is about Larry's quest to find a girlfriend.
Your right, what was I thinking..girls..romance in a video game
who has done this expect everyone. I guess this company doing better then all of them..
I think people are a little too quick to draw their swords on this issue and I don't see why. After all, there are plenty of relationships going on in the TWD tv series as well, and as long as it furthers the plot and creates real relationships between people, why not? Why is it perfectly acceptable to kill, maim and murder endlessly but not add romance into a story about human survival?
I doubt anyone would be against a romantic aspect to the storyline, assuming it's there for the right reasons (and "because I want to get to second base" is not a good reason). The first season was about a group of people thrown into a zombie apocalypse, struggling to survive. It's unsurprising that in such a situation, romance wouldn't be high on anyone's priority list. However, as time goes on, and the survivors adapt to their situation more, then it would be more realistic for such relationships to start to form.
Love and loss are powerful emotions -- especially when done together -- and Telltale have covered the whole loss thing already, so it wouldn't surprise me if they decided to tackle love in S2. Just don't expect it to end well!
I have nothing against romance in games and I enjoyed how TTG has portrayed romance of Guybrush and Elaine in their Tales of Monkey Island.
However while I have nothing against full frontal nudity and sex scenes in fiction (I'm huge Spartacus fan), I don't think that sex scenes (like the one which the OP described in his first post) work well in adventure games (exception is aforementioned Leisure Suit Larry series). For example in Fahrenheit interactive sex scenes didn't really add anything to the story and some of those scenes felt like those were there just to show some polygon boobs. Phantasmagoria 2's sex scenes were even more awkward and felt like watching bad softcore porn.
I agree that these scenes have been known to be self serving and rather one sided (skewed to please the male gamer), but I don't believe the solution should be to cut them out altogether. Rather they should be to designed to reflect a truly human relationship between two characters, with both having their motivations, desires and fears and if there is a time and place for it, that can very well culminate in an erotic scene if it fits the narrative (so very much the opposite of 'hey, we've got a conveniently placed female npc prop here, let's get her nude asap'
).
As a girl myself, I'd very much like to see more depth to characters in any game I play, movie I watch, book I read, and romantic relationships & sex are very much part of that. But I would like to see it in a more balanced 'human' manner, showing both sides as equal, and not just an excuse to see them polygon boobs
I draw my sword on this issue because game relationships are almost ridiculous. I've got real life to deal with a girlfriend, I don't need to make petting budies with a digital ones. Gaming relationships are almost always terrible essentialism where if you treat a woman with the 'right' responses and actions she'll bone you. That doesn't happen in real life because attraction is infinitely more complicated like that. I always find game relationships to be shallow point systems for screw time.
New idea. Telltale, put in a relationship system where even if you do and say all the right things, the woman rejects you. THAT would be awesome. The random element would be swell.
And more penises. The first time a nude scene happens, make sure it's like, all dude.
Why would you want that in the game? A bit of well-dosed romance MIGHT be good for the story, but explicit sex won't. And if you want sex for the sake of it, this is the wrong game.
Sexual scenes in games are just awkward. Put this in a Telltale game and it'd ruin it.
One reason why I never played Heavy Rain.
Actually I like the idea. I think lee and Carley should have been given the option to get romantic. That would have been way better with the "your choices dictate the gameplay" stuff TTG was marketing.
Interesting thought...
Lee should have had the option to make sweet love down by the fire with Carley or Lilly, or if you chose so Doug. TTG could have made a huge impact on their" your choices matter" slogan.
I could see the dialog now.
Lee - "Doug that's a great early warning system. I can finally relax and get to know your better"
Bad idea. When I was a kid ( young, dumb and full of you know what ) watching movies, I loved the sex scenes. But now, I see that they don't add to to the story or plot. I think that's why you don't see much of that anymore.
Perhaps you should take a break and... "handle" your urges and then come back and play, so you can be more focused.
Sorry, Stephanie Meyer isn't involved with The Walking Dead Game Series.
Basically, this is just another request for romance in the game, and frankly, I'd have to say no. Not because I have anything against it, but because it doesn't sit well in this kind of game - TWD takes place during a zombie apocalypse where anything anywhere can kill you, and that is not that sexy. I'd say that even during 'safe' conditions (like at the motel), too much time would be needed to spend on safety to relax enough to get some good pick-up lines going.
No, seriously. Episode 2 starts with Carly as a lookout, and then later we see Ben there. I bet that everyone excluding the kids are up there a few hours all the time 24/7 when they are not out to look for supplies, making repairs and basically just staying alive. That is not romantic and ill-suited for this kind of game; not to mention that the entire format of the game - a couple of hours per episode - would make any romantic interaction forced. It would just be awkward.
While I don't want to turn The Walking Dead into dating game, I must say in the name of honesty, that the comic book and TV-series have plenty of relationships, for example in comics Glenn started dating Maggie and eventually married her and Rick has had several relationships (with Lori, Jessie and Andrea).
Some people are just scared by change. If you told those same people who played Sam and Max. There would be a walking dead. Where you can decide who lives or who dies. Told them half this stuff, they wouldn't have believed you. Fact is, most of the stuff took place. Now they gotten the gore down.
It's time to take romance up a notch. Everyone has an opinion, either this romance will "ruin the game" or be good for it. I never understood how we can blow people away with guns, we can see the bullet passes through their body. Yet romance, yea that seems to be going to far. I say turn up the volume on this machine, let's see how epic you can make games.
You cannot make gore games without adding romances. Not just sex, but romances. Why is it we can blow people away with guns in the zombie game, and just blood, guts hang out in their other games. Yet adding a romance is simply going to far. I'd love to see how they'd do romances.
I'm not like these sticks in the muds. I actually want to see.
I hate to be that stick in the mud, but apart from what I've already said earlier here, another reason I'm reluctant to add romances to a game like TWD is because of the format - we have a grand total of about 10 hours of gameplay, in which we need to get a plot, a story, interaction and action. Sorry, but there's simply not enough room, unless you go the Mass Effect 1 way and essentially get the question 'wanna hook up?' - and then have the reply options of 'yes', 'hell yes' and 'maybe' (yeah, ME1 handled romances that badly). It would be forced, awkward and unnatural, unless you want to add even more awkwardness by using a time skip and state that 'you and X are now together! Happy boning!'
Some games can actually work with and use romances in a good way, but that means that it MUST be paced along with the rest of the game - the best example of that comes from Baldurs Gate 2, but that game had about 40 hours of play plus the add ons. that meant that nothing was rushed and you could get to know not only a love interest but everybody else too well.
So I'm not opposing romances per se; I'm opposing them in this game and this game format. M'kay?
I think romance could work if it was like Omid's and Christa's relationship or Katjaa's and Kenny's relationship. So instead trying to get a date the player character would already have a partner and maybe even children. It would give player character similar motivations like Christa had when Omid was wounded or Kenny's attempts to protect Katjaa and Duck.
I think it's a pretty good idea. Heavy Rain and Beyond both did it and I think it was an appealing aspect to both games (NOT THE NUDITY, the Romance.) Remember when before episode 3 of TWD came out I heard a lot of questions about romance between Lee and Carley. I don't think it's such a bad idea and I'd be up for it in Season 2.
That I could actually get behind since it would remove the need for a courtship dance. But it would be difficult to implement since you have the player, the character and a possible spouse.Now, the player will need some time alone with his character in order to get to know him first ("Who am I? The black dude, ok"). The player also needs time to get to know the controls of the game ("So how do I change my reply to that old fart? Ok, the arrow keys.") and get used to the graphics ("is this supposed to look like this?") and sounds ("is that the fan going too hard, or is it an in-game sound?").
And to then introduce the player to said spouse would just make the player confused - he doesn't know "himself", but "himself" is talking and reacting to this woman as he has known her for years. I found this especially aggrevating during the episode with Wyatt and his junkie pal - they clearly knew each other well, but I had no idea who "I" was and even less that guy. And to make matters worse, it began in medias res, the absolute worse way to start a new game section with someone the player don't know - together with someone else he doesn't know.
Several other adventure games have managed to do that, my reaction usually is: "Oh, so that's the main character's girlfriend, boyfriend, mother, father etc." I don't really see the problem with that, because not every drama character can be like Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name. Personally I enjoyed Wyatt's dialogue, because it told me a great deal about both characters and their background as long time drug users.
The irony here. If you had told people years ago who were playing Sam and Max, that they're would be a game called the walking dead, and describe all the events you would have to do. More or less, it was a Tell Tale game. They never, in a thousand years would have believed you. Most likely, they would taunted you how that never would have took place.
Well, Tell Tale finally improved their old ways. Look at what took place. Success, for the first time maybe in a long time or ever in the company's career. We now have a surge of new users coming in. No offense to this old site. I know it was a close knit community. Problem was, when you make successful games, supposed get hundreds new users signing up.
They turned on gore meter, and the sales went through the roof. I believe even one person on tell tale was quoted as saying, season 2 would not be till after a year. Less then a year later here we are, its only natural event, that they add romances. Rick had several romances on screen in the walking dead.
It's romances, if people like it or not. That can keep things interesting. It can be hypocritical, to blow a guys head off. Yet not add romances. If people are that really faint about playing a game shows nudity or romances. They have the option of not playing, judging from success of other games.
I say this can only improve games. It doesn't have be in the center plot or games. Least make it an option. Game is about choices, perhaps some would like romance option.
And Rick's social life is the default? As far as I remember, there were a lot of people in the cast that did NOT have any romances. Sure, Rick is the guy who we start with, but as the show has progressed, more and more people has stepped up. Unless of course, if we take Rick's romantic life as default, shouldn't we take his stupidity into the mix as well? Have a protagonist plunge deeper and deeper into boneheadness?
I would like to reiterate what I've already said: I don't think a game like this with at most ten hours of gameplay is a fitting format to squeeze in a romance. I *like *good romantic subplots, make no mistake, but for that to take place in a RPG in a zombieverse, I think the entire game needs an overhaul, extending the gameplay to at least 40-45 hours. I'm not joking - if something that a lot of people care about (romances, duh) is squeezed in in too little time, it will feel tacky and forced, and I can't see how that could possibly contribute to a good game.
Besides, I think it was very refreshing that TWD did not have a romance despite being an M-game. Romances seems to be just something game companies just have a checkbox for when making RPGs, and that is not the way to go - and it adds to the tackiness.
But above all, I think romances don't have much space in this kind of world - what could go down (no pun intended) would possibly be just quick casual sex because in a world or setting where your life is on the line 24/7 you can't afford this kind of feelings. It is said that humanity is just two meals from barbarity, and I think that is correct. Just look at how people think, act and feel at frontlines in war: their main feeling is fear, nothing else. How much fun and games does anyone think there were in the trenches of Gallipoli? That is not to say romances can't flourish during dangerous times, just that they have a better chance way from danger. Check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs:
First level is basic physical needs - food, water, sleep and so on. This was worked with by Kenny and Lee at the beginning of episode 2.
Second level is about personal safety, and we don't start working with that until the basic needs are satisfied - this became a point during episode 2 as well, when Kenny and Lilly quarrelled about leaving or staying (or in psychology language, see to the first level of needs or second).
We can safely assume this has been a constant point of disagreement in the camp, and as we could see, the camp wasn't safe. Now, how could anyone strive for a romantic relationship even during these circumstances (found at level 3)? Or to look further up the pyramid, achievements or creativity (level 4 and 5)?
Out of curiosity why you keep comparing the Walking Dead to RPGs? Those are whole different genre than graphic adventures. I would understand that comparison if you had to spend first hour of the game beating the weakest zombies to level up and loot their bodies in hope of finding better equipment for Lee.
They could actually increase the game play time, at the same time they are increasing the price. I'd pay 50 dollars for one season with double the playing hours. Right now, the game is an average of an hour and 40 minutes, to two hours per show. That rounds a roughly 10 hours combined assuming its two hours each show.
If they increased the shows to ten, or added an extra hour. They could do the romance. They do so many different story's all at once, where everything is connected. In the walking dead 400 days. You had the honor of playing through the lenses of eight seperate story's combined. You know what? one of those stories had a romance in it.
Indirectly, the woman, and jealous woman and her husband. You were placed in a love triangle. It didn't take all day. it was apart of the story. You talk about romances as if they should be separate from an actual story. I'm not here saying it should circle around one romance the entire game.
Yet we should at least have an option. If you don't want it that's fine, why rain on the parade of the people who do. Again, you do not have to put romance in every single showing or even highlight it. But as most things with this game, can be an option. The way Witcher 2 does romance, is naturally.
They don't make a massive mountain hill out of it, nor do they conceal it. That is a game that has choices, yet still had romances. You can do both. They are too many games out there to list every single one, but there are options to have choices. You didn't gather two years ago. Tell Tale would improve their system to let us have choices.
Who knows what else is possible. How do we know if the romance would be quick/casual sex or long term intended romances, unless you actually do it. I get it, some people are sick of offline romances. Yet I will repeat, it amazes me in a game where you can blow off peoples head's with shotguns. It's somehow impossible to inject a romance. (not matter how long or short) you say simply it will not work. Well, I respectfully disagree.
Just look at the wolf among us, they gotten snow and wolf (I know its apart of their main story later on) but they proved they can hold a romance over. Why they wouldn't do it, unless they are frozen from negative feedback from people like you, then I am stunned. Why they wouldn't want to try it out. You can have all action and adventure and possible a girl. If not that's your choice.
I compare walking dead to RPG, because it is a rpg. A role playing game is defined as that. You are the main person, role playing with other people. Not all games are centered around leveling and better equipment. That's a MMO ( massively multiplayer online) its more then suitable to call it a RPG
Try Weenie Hut Juniors across the street...
The Walking Dead is a graphic adventure game, it's same genre as games like Fahrenheit or Dreamfall: The Longest Journey.
I wasn't thinking MMO, because I haven't played any of those. I was thinking more games like Fallout, where I spent first hour killing rats and then scorpions after exiting Vault 13. But it's equally true with games like Diablo I and II or Baldur's Gate -series and Icewind Dale -series, just to mention few. You mention the Witcher, but even the first Witcher starts with series of combats against bandits before you can move forward in story. I have nothing against RPGs and I have been playing those since SSI's classic AD&D games, like Pool of Radiance and The Dark Queen of Krynn, but I just don't see The Walking Dead as part of the same genre.
EDIT: If you mean freedom to choose what kind of person the protagonist is, then I must say that it's not RPG exclusive and not every RPG gives you this choice. Westwood Studios' excellent adventure game Blade Runner gave you even greater choice regarding protagonist's moral character than The Walking Dead and your choices decided if the protagonist turned out to be human or replicant. BTW there was romance in that game and yet again player's choices decided with which woman or giri the main character ended up or if he stayed single.
Honestly I think the "let's get it on" option would have been best when Carley asked Lee to tell his secret to some of the group. Around that time if you played your cards right Carley was flirting with Lee. The option should have been made to some sometime together alone.
It would have made Carley's death much more meaningful.
I remember thinking to myself.. DAMN I should have chef'd her up down by the fire.
Usually, an RPG is built up as you say - start at level 1 and kill some rats and end at level 20 and kill a god or something.
However, killing and looting is so very 1970's when it comes to RPGs. A role-playing game is per definition a game where you take the role of someone else within a certain setting - killing monsters and looting are just parts of that. Then an RPG can of course have different settings (fantasy/steampunk/zombieverse/whatever) and different characters with setting ranging from set in stone (The Walking Dead, The Witcher) to semi-set characters (Dragon Age, Mass Effect) to totally open characters where nothing is set from the start (most tabletop RPGs). No one would argue that The Witcher isn't a RPG but the premises are pretty much the same as in The Walking Dead: you have a set character within a set universe.
Violence and looting is not a prerequisite for an RPG - and besides, you have that in TWD as well. Neither is levelling, but if you want, you could see the game as filled with automatic levelling for Lee - he starts totally unaware about zombies, but in time gets more cunning and learns about the new world. That is why I see TWD as a RPG.
Apparently our definitions are different. There are some graphic adventure games with heavy RPG influences, like Quest for Glory -series, King's Quest: Mask of Eternity or Waxworks, but The Walking Dead isn't one of those. Like I said in my previous post to this thread, I think that The Walking Dead is in same category with games like Fahrenheit, Dreamfall and Blade Runner i. e. I see The Walking Dead as a pure graphic adventure/interactive fiction with some action game elements (timed action sequences).
PS: As a tabletop roleplayer/GM I consider that most computer RPGs have very little to do with tabletop RPGs, because traditionally computer RPGs are more about building the stats and fighting than about the actual roleplaying. There are some exceptions, but even there you can't derail the story if you get better idea what you want to do with your character, although playing as evil makes for example Baldur's Gate experience very shallow, because you end up killing everyone you could normally interact with because your criminal record makes every civilian NPC hostile towards you. You still can finish the game, but you miss most of additional quests and stuff. In any case levelling up is always more present in computer RPGs than it is in tabletop games (unless player is a munchkin powergamer).
According to your demand, you probably want to play Grand Theft Auto.
To address your first point, these options should be what they are,options and not a compulsory part of the story. So if you don't want to bother with having to schmooze a virtual lass in addition to a real one you shouldn't have to!
Your second point was right on though; indeed attraction is a very complex thing to simulate and it could take a designer weeks if not more to come up with the entire psychology behind how a character could react to certain aspects of our protagonist. I would love to see something like this in games eventually, because it is a really fascinating part of the human condition and FINALLY something other than the tried and true. So imo the answer is not leave romance out altogether but design better romance OPTIONS! Use them designer brains! Create three dimensional deep and interesting characters you WANT to form these relationships with. Heck, isn't forming bonds and feeling for these pixel heros the whole point of the gaming endeavor?
Oh and your last point... I can only say, three times hurrah for equal opportunity nudity haha.
Baldurs Gate is an excellent example of a good RPG (or if you want, a good GM). I belong to the faction that thinks that the more evil you play, the harder it will be to get around - essentially the game (or GM) should make sure people react properly to your character instead of ignoring them: "Oh hi, you are the that guy who butchered an entire village. Now, I have a totally unrelated job for you..." Compare to: "Aaah! Its the butcher of that village! Run away!"
The handling of evilness can in some games be quite ham-fisted, but overall, I think its quite ok. The main thing is that you have to pay the price for your actions (which is actually done better in other games, like Neverwinter Nights 2). And here we comes back to TWD: You can pay the price if Lee have been a dick by not having people follow him to get Clem, or in 400 days where you might not end up with a full party to return to the safe community.
Sure, computer RPGs are more restrained than tabletop RPGs for practical reasons, but that doesn't make them less of RPGs - just different.
While I agree that it should have consequences I think the effects to the gameplay are too severe and affect to your gameplay decisions. IMHO you should face the consequences if there is some hard evidence which links you to the massacre of that village, like eyewitness survival and there has been enough time for news to spread around. Even in that case you should be able to disguise yourself to avoid recognition. I think that Fallout 2 did it better, although even there your reputation did spread around too fast.
I won't get into fine details. I don't consider myself an expert what is RPG. That misses the entire point of my point. Nor do I claim to be. However I call it a RPG (Role Playing Game) it could also be considered (action, adventure) or both. Because their is so much interaction.
For example in the wolf among us, you have four different choices on what to say. You talk to people as if you are a wolf. People react to you as if you are. The game is designed for you to play through. Roleplay as the wolf.
role-play
[rohl-pley] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.
Sorry about going to OT and away from the actual topic of romances and sex. I just have very strict definitions of what I call computer RPG, what I call graphic adventure, what I call action-adventure and what I call survival horror etc. And sometimes it rubs me the wrong way if someone uses different definitions.