Using rivalry and respect to push romance in games forward

[Traveling Bard]

I was reading a Gamasutra article about this topic and wanted to see what you guys/gals think about it. The gist of the article is that in most games, romances are scaled at "1 to maximum number" but instead of doing that how about you add more variables to the mix.

"It gives you the idea that you just want to be really nice and tell people what they want to hear," noted the writer. "But life doesn't work that way... You're gaming the character instead of engaging with them."

He suggests that you use Rivalry and Respect as the two variables. 

At the beginning of the game, the person may feel like a rival to you, but as you both go through specific scenarios, you slowly find respect for each other and the rivalry dissipates, allowing the potential for attraction. What this means is that, rather than just doing good things to your potential romance interest to make them fall in love with you, you might choose to go against their wishes at times in order to later gain their respect through your decisions. This also provides the opportunity for insulting and taking cheap shots at your potential love interest as, rather than putting them off as in most games, you end up stoking the rivalry and it may pay off in the long run

My take is that relationships are messy and rarely make sense. Translating a "real" feeling relationship would be hard to do unless the storyline was already there for them to fall for you in the first place. For them to fall for you based on your actions makes things complicated but I feel that the idea of a two variable method might make it more realistic feeling than "if i worship them and do what they want from me then that will make them want me and they will be mine" which is typically a huge turn off for most of the opposite sex. They want a challenge not a puppy dog. 

If I might suggest something else to add to the mix, a third variable which is simply a random number that continuously changes to represent the spontaneous/sporadic element of falling in love. It could be a high point for you two, getting along well & challenging each other at the same time but that doesn't mean that you'll fall in love. In my opinion, this would be the closest to realistic a relationship in game can be.

I'll leave you with this: What do you think about this concept? Is being that realistic even fun/worthwhile for the player?

 

[kerbonklin]

I definitely agree that when games have some kind of relationship system with choices, there should definitely be the notion that doesn't make the player say the "promising words that the characters like to hear". What promotes preventing that is good character development, how they act and are portrayed, how the game portrays them to you, and the choices given.

For example when playing Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor 2...(spoilers)

Spoiler

The game slowly introduces you into 3 different factions, little by little.

Faction #1 is the JPs lead by Hotsuin Yamato, who is an elitist with no sympathy for the weak, sacrifices "pawns", but however he is the only person capable of saving Japan from the demons/septentriones as each day passes. He then declares that he wants to create a new world order under a merit system by defeating Polaris, aka God. Most people can definitely grow to hate him, but if it wasn't for him then everyone would be dead and not live to see the next day.

Faction #2 is a group that riots against Faction #1 (JPs), lead by Ronaldo Kuriki. He fights for the civilians and for the sake of equality, and wants to remake the world that way after learning that Yamato can do such a thing via Polaris. Normally the player would love and support him at first, but then as you progress he becomes a little drastic, like killing your friends who are related to JPs. (Makoto) Here is where the player would probably lose their trust and pick choices that go against him.

Faction #3 is a solo person, The Anguished One, who is a mysterious entity with demi-god-like powers who comes to you to discuss about the potential of mankind. At first he seems like a good guy, and he helps you survive against the septentriones with hints on how to beat them, but then in one scene he attempts to kill one of your friends (Otome), hoping you will come and say her as a "test" of sorts in viewing mankind's potential. Here is where the player would probably lose their trust and pick choices that go against him. If you continue to follow his path though, he proves himself legit good-guy and he helps you overthrow Polaris, in return making HIM the new Polaris, but with the promise of remaking the world under free will.

Now you're at the 3/4th point of the game and you have 4 routes to take: either save the world and remake it under these three factions, or choose to side with your best friend Daichi, who is clueless and hopeless, does not support any of the factions, but is actually the "proper path" to choose.

Well, there are no wrong answers, but each relationship person has it's times when it would make you hate them or make you like them.

 

[whitesphere]

I think a good relationship system would not be like the few relationship games I've seen.  The games I've seen take the "Give this person enough attention/quests solved/gifts and s/he's yours."  Personally, I don't think that's at all realistic.

Personally, I'd set up a fair number of romantic prospects...BUT, each would have some internal, randomly-generated "relationship cap" which could NOT be exceeded, no matter what.  This simulates the realities of unrequited affection and means there is never a "best" prospect as much as "With whom can the player click enough to make it work"?    Once the player has reached that cap, some clear statement from the prospect is good.

Also, I think, being too "eager" or "not eager enough" would cause relationship levels to drop, and again, how "eager" one must be is randomly determined for each prospect.  But, you will get verbal hints that show if you're being too eager or not eager enough.

Basically, I think a good relationship system has a lot of unknowns within each prospect, which the player must determine.  Maybe, say, one person likes gifts more, one likes going on adventures more.  But, the unknowns give the game replay value and I think are much more realistic than, say, Harvest Moon saying "Karen likes Wine.  Give her Wine each day and talk to her each day, see her heart events, and you can marry her."

My system is more like "Well, Karen likes Wine.  But she's not that into you."  or "Paula enjoys spending time with you, but much less than once a week or more than twice a week spooks her,:  But the latter parts you find out by playing.

 

[Milennin]

Many stories are unrealistic, because a lot of people enjoy them. Such as kid from small village going on a journey to become a hero and find the legendary sword to defeat the dark lord. These kind of stories are just as valid as realistic stories. The same goes for romantic relationships between the main characters in stories. Some people enjoy the simple, naive and unrealistically sweet take on romance, while others may prefer a more realistic approach. Neither way is right or wrong, it's just a matter of preferences.

 

[Traveling Bard]

Many stories are unrealistic, because a lot of people enjoy them. Such as kid from small village going on a journey to become a hero and find the legendary sword to defeat the dark lord. These kind of stories are just as valid as realistic stories. The same goes for romantic relationships between the main characters in stories. Some people enjoy the simple, naive and unrealistically sweet take on romance, while others may prefer a more realistic approach. Neither way is right or wrong, it's just a matter of preferences.

I agree, it's preference. The idea of the article is to try something new with it by attempting to make the experience more realistic. Not saying that all rpgs or dating sims should be this way. I'm not even sure it would be fun for the player for the game experience to be so realistic. Though I would say that it might appeal to someone. Definitely a niche' title, but then again who knows? 

The article that I'm referring to also brings up the option of letting the player model the npcs that they will be chasing as well as their own personal characters. This brings up an interesting idea. I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there that would like to model their love interest in game to possibly a love interest in real life. I'm not saying that this is necessarily a "healthy" thing to do haha but i can definitely seeing that being an attractive option to those that enjoy genres like dating sims or simply would like to take the roleplaying experience to another more personal level.

In conclusion, I think this idea of creating romance or other types of relationships in game via more than a single variable is worthwhile to explore. Still not sure if players would like it, but it would be interesting to see done.  

 

[C-C-C-Cashmere]

I agree, it's preference. The idea of the article is to try something new with it by attempting to make the experience more realistic. Not saying that all rpgs or dating sims should be this way. I'm not even sure it would be fun for the player for the game experience to be so realistic. Though I would say that it might appeal to someone. Definitely a niche' title, but then again who knows?

I don't believe the notion of representing relationships accurately in games is a niche subject at all. Entire games revolve around this concept, namely visual novels. The ambition to represent relationships more accurately, especially in games with dating sim elements, is an important consideration. This concept is similar to the concept of a good/evil gauge. Is a single variable the best way to represent how morally good or evil a character is? The question is the same with relationships - is a single variable the most optimal way to represent a relationship between two characters?

I think a good relationship system would not be like the few relationship games I've seen.  The games I've seen take the "Give this person enough attention/quests solved/gifts and s/he's yours."  Personally, I don't think that's at all realistic.

...

My system is more like "Well, Karen likes Wine.  But she's not that into you."  or "Paula enjoys spending time with you, but much less than once a week or more than twice a week spooks her,:  But the latter parts you find out by playing.

It would be interesting to formulate a system whereby every character has a combination of interests and turnoffs, and via conversational choices that are frequent throughout the game, you either please or displease this character. A game that does something to this effect is Romancing Walker. All romantic subplots are scripted, and depending on your conversational choices, persons will either be pleased or displeased with you. Like The Walking Dead: A Telltale Series, you can also entertain the notion of "balancing" relationships between two factions, such as family and love interests, or moral obligation and social obligation. One of the projects I am slowly working on, entitled Living City, uses this system in an attempt to create more vibrant and well-crafted relationships while maintaining artistic control.

 

[Mouser]

I think throwing random into the mix is a bit much. Players want to know that if they do/say the right things, whatever combination they happen to be in your game, then they get the prize at the end. Having to do everything correctly and then still needing to pray to the RNG gods would be a big killjoy to me. It would also have the effect of players not knowing what the right things are, since if it doesn't work out, they will logically assume that they did something wrong along the way.

This is an area where I think the K*I*S*S principle applies - unless the relationships ARE the game. If this is some sort of visual novel/dating sim then make the relationship stuff as complex as you want it to be. For a normal cRPG though, I think simple choices (not necessarily obvious choices) are the better route to go.

Baldur's Gate 2 handled this really well, and a lot of mods expand on the provided framework adding NPC's so you have even more romantic options. There were rivalries between two lovers, where you would have to choose one over the other.  Sometimes a 3rd NPC not romantically involved would come in for some reason (Keldorn and Viconia). At its core though were 2 very simple relationship variables. One to indicate the state of the romance: not started, started but not heavy, full romance, over - either by an ending or the player pissing the NPC off or choosing another. The second kept track of the 'progress' of the romance so the game new what dialog to throw up next.

 

[whitesphere]

I fully understand how incredibly frustrating it is to win or lose solely due to the random number gods.  Any of us who have played a Roguelike game understand that completely.

That's why I think it is difficult to do properly.  The way I see it, my approach would require careful NPC scripting and dialog to give hints of varying levels of clarity, from facial expression to word choices, to show how the NPCs feel.  So, basically, the RNG would simulate the inner, well, "thoughts" of the interest, but those thoughts would have to be mirrored to the player clearly.

For example, NPC 1 has some strictly friendly interest in the player, NPC 2 has some interest but wants to go slowly, NPC 3 is very interested and wants to go as fast as possible.  The player asks all 3 "Want to go with me to the school dance?"  (restoring from save after each)

Now, in this example, the school dance is not a Big Dance, so it could be interpreted as "hey, let's go have fun" or "maybe he's interested in me."

NPC 1 might smile widely and say "Sure, sounds like fun! I can't wait to see my other friends at the dance too!"

NPC 2 might give a shy smile, and say "Ummm...yes, I'd like to go...but I can't stay too long."

NPC 3 might smile widely and say "It would be great! I'm looking forward to spending SOOO much time together!"

In this case, NPC 1 is clearly showing "Hey, you're a good friend" while NPC 2 is being more reserved but indicating there is some degree of interest, NPC 3 is showing "Extremely interested, nearly to the point of stalking."

And, if the same question were asked to a Big Dance, which clearly shows romantic interest, the 3 NPCs might reply:

NPC 1  "I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings, but, I'm just not interested in you that way."

NPC 2: "Thanks for asking...I'm just not comfortable until we know each other a bit better...I do like you though."

NPC 3:  "Sure!  Want to make plans for after the dance?"

So, if it were done right, which is probably hard to do, each different love interest would have wildly different levels of interest, but the player could easily find out who is interested and not and in what way, by interacting with each one and observing the dialog and facial expressions.  

And, I agree that some people probably don't want a "realistic" dating sim.  I'd just like to see more games that give relationship dynamics that are a bit more realistic.

I agree that, for an RPG which is not primarily a dating sim, it would be severe overkill.  But, for Rune Factory 2, for example, where the romance is a key element, it might make sense.

Now I'm tempted to try this challenge, to make a little "dating" sim in RPG maker which incorporates this idea.

 

[Lunarea]

Not only are relationships tough to peg in general, but what most people expect when they see a "relationship" option is romance. What's expected is that whole entire romantic notion of love being grand and made up of grand gestures. They want the butterflies you get when you really like someone, and they want to experience that emotional roller-coaster of intensity and drama. And while that's nice and fun, not all relationships are about that.

There's a lot of subtle and understated parts of a relationship that rarely get screen time. Things like companionship, support and all the small things that generally only mean a ton to the two people in the relationship. There's been a few pieces of media that explore this (good example: the beginning of Pixar's Up), but it's not explored often. It's mainly because it doesn't look so exciting to the observer. They don't get the same happy feeling as they do with grand romance, and those small things don't get noticed unless that's all the story's about.

The other issue is that relationships take time to build. You don't (generally) get a happily ever after just by giving the other person a present and sharing a kiss. You have to get to know them, and know yourself in the process.

So, if you want to have a relationship that feels more "realistic", you need to delve into those little details and give it time. You should explore the small mundane scenes that slowly bring the characters closer.

My 2 cents, anyway.

 

[whitesphere]

So it's sort of like Fiddler on the Roof?

From what I've heard, there is a scene where the husband asks the wife if she loves him.  Her reply goes something like:

"We've been together for 20 years.  I've stood by you, washed your clothes, raised our children, taken care of you when you're sick.  We've laughed together.  We've cried together.  If that's not love, I don't know what is."

Or, during the "getting to know" phase, it's more like choosing to make time for the person, knowing full well you might be sacrificing other things.  Making the person a priority, in other words.  In RPG terms, it's making the hard choices --- spend time with X might mean you need to sacrifice something else in-game."  

 

[SLEEP]

Relationships are messy, running them through the clean logical process of math and mathimatical outcomes ruins them, yes i'm doing this again. The idea of anothe axis does complecate things potentially, and is more interesting than a single axis, but ultimately I still believe that math and romance don't mix.

However, if you do want to use some system to determine how you relate to other characters, a two-axis system with romance as one of many outcomes is probably the best way to do it. Computer programs only understand math, after all. Keep the variables hidden, include non-explicit, non dialogue choices, include multiple valid outcomes as there are multiple desireable ways to relate to a person, and include a cut-off point for changing the nature of the relationship so you can write a convincing and organic (ie: no mathtimatical interference) end to the story without the player needing to worry about hitting enough variable math triggers for the "best" ending. Two axis is probably best, as there are four big outcome groups, and any more will probably become too hard to manage. Finally, make different characters have different outcomes to reflect their personality. Maybe different axis for different characters, so they can have different outcomes to keep with their personalities? This is just general advice idk.

 

[aozgolo]

Relationships tend to have their BIGGEST challenge in reconciling words with actions. I think part of the issue in most games that have relationships is it's 90% words or more, you just choose an option to say to someone, or choose the right gift to give someone, and in many cases with words, the "right" choice to get them to like you is obvious.

I think for relationships to be more effective and grounded it needs to have more consequence beyond your words. For example if you ignore all the beggars in the game asking for 1 to 5 gold pieces, then maybe that girl who values helping the poor will eventually realize you're not the nice guy you claim to be when talking to her. This doesn't have to be an instant "death knell" but if you don't change your ways you could end up parting ways.

Ultima IV had an interesting virtue system where you were scored independently on 8 different virtues (I believe Sacrifice, Honor, Compassion, Humility, Valor, Spirituality, Justice, and Honesty) which were affected by everything you do from whether you ran from fights, let enemies escape, steal from blind shopkeepers, visit shrines, donate to the poor, don't use cursed items, etc. While you don't have to completely borrow from that, the idea of having relationships go beyond a simple multiple choice grid in conversation would be nice. So let's say you create x number of variables, each romantic option has set values in these variables, these variables can be personality types. Even if you make each variable only have two states (IE: Honest or Deceitful) the comparison of multiple variables to your own allows for a far more robust system of relations. You won't have to perfectly match (most people don't) but there should be weight that if you hold totally the opposite values or personality from that character you just can't reconcile it no matter what.

 

[aozgolo]

Double Post, sorry

 

[Mouser]

I've kind of done the 'romance' thing differently in my game.

When you start out, you'll get some dialog choices pretty soon before one of the party members joins. Based on your responses, you either have a lover or a friend (pretty obvious choices). After that, the relationship doesn't change. That leaves me free to dialog in a lot of the 'little things' Lunarea alluded to, and the player is free to just play the game without worrying about keeping some arbitrary relationship number(s) high enough - or low enough, whichever way she wants to go.

 

[Tai_MT]

Rivalry and respect, 'eh?  Oh, the amount of tomes I could write on all the aspects of love and the multitudes of ways I've been successful and failed in them.

Here's the catch though:

The proposed formula assumes the player wants "rivalry" with whomever they're dating.  Not everyone wants a rival or someone to help push them to their limits.  In fact, finding a human being that isn't immature on the aspect of a rival in anything is kind of rare in and of itself.  Human beings are kind of hard wired for competition.  We live for it, we thrive on it, and we innately dislike those better than us (let's take the example of the argument against the 1% as proof positive of this in action.  As in, people who have money vs those who do not).  "Friendly" rivalries very seldom ever happen, and even less often form some basis of a relationship.

Now, if we step onto the ground of "respect", we find a similar issue.  Not everyone is looking for "respect" from the one they're with.  Though, it might also be wise for them to define what they mean by "respect" in the first place.  If they mean respect as in "just don't treat me like crap, I am a human being too", then it's not enough to really form any kind of lasting bond (like love, partnership, or even allies).  If they mean "treat me the way I perceive myself to be" (as in, ego), then we might have the basis for a fairly doomed relationship right from the get-go (what with all the lying and subservience).  Respect to me, has always seemed more like "go along to get along" in just about any way it's ever been described to me.  So, it's somewhat amusing that they don't want relationships in games where you "tell them exactly what they want to hear", but then ask for some kind of Respect meter.  Honestly, I suspect they don't mean "respect", so much as they mean "to aspire to be like" or "to find as an equal".

My personal take on relationships is thus:

A proper relationship is one in which both parties are served by it and both made much better because of it.  Most relationships are born strictly from shallow standpoints (she's pretty, he's hot, she's easy, he's got money, etcetera) that happen because people are doing a bit of coveting.  They then try to forge some kind of arrangement and "relationship" out of these shallow things in order to keep them.  Then, there's the relationships that are formed out of fear of being alone.  It's the reason why things like "The Rebound Pickup" exist.  It exists because it's easier to be with someone you don't know and don't care about than to be by yourself.  Finally, we have the relationships formed out of either lies or out of intercourse.  These relationships are usually formed amongst the young and inexperienced (Ages 16 to 25 in most cases, though sometimes younger or older).  These relationships are largely learning experiences for those involved that tend to also revolve around simply "getting what they want".  They're the most selfish of relationships.

Now, what makes a good relationship?  Lots of people would say any number or multitude of things.  Why?  We all want something different.  However, there is a somewhat common thread.  A good relationship that lasts nearly a lifetime is usually based on two things:  Communication and what I call "Puzzle Piece".  There's likely a name for it out there somewhere, and I'm sure some scholar would know better than me what it is.  What I call "Puzzle Piece" is nothing more than finding someone who not just fits your personality, but also provides the parts your personality is missing.  Sometimes it's called "Opposites Attract", though that term is a bit too broad for me.  Basically, you need to communicate with your partner and know as much about each other as possible as well as provide perspective to your own opinions, beliefs, and decisions.  Your significant other must be able to agree with you as well as tell you when you're wrong.  It helps when being told you're wrong doesn't result in a fight...  But, sometimes a good fight (as long as it's not over something stupid and meaningless) is just what you both need to blow off steam.

Media rarely, if ever, gets relationships right.  Why?  Because a relationship done right is boring.  If a relationship is done right, it will only be entertaining and amusing to those in the relationship.  Let's take a quick look at the relationship between Wash and Zoe on Firefly as an example.  It's probably the closest to reality I've ever seen a relationship get.  Take a good look at that relationship.  Is it interesting?  Do you want to know more about it?  If you do, is it only because you want to dissect it and figure out how it works?  Their relationship in the show is just there.  It isn't really "interesting", so much as it's just part of the everyday drama and relationships aboard the ship.  It's interesting in the same way Kaylee and River's relationship is interesting.  You wouldn't watch an entire show with only Wash and Zoe in it talking about their married life and acting married.  It's just not interesting.  In the show, it's interesting because curiosity about who these people are and what makes them tick provides the interest.

So, would I like to see better relationships in video games?  Of course I would.  Do I ever expect to get it?  No, not really.  I don't expect to get it, because if I ever got what I wanted, I wouldn't want it anymore.  I also don't expect to get it because it would be dreadfully boring.  Currently, in many video games, choosing who you date or marry is the most interesting part of the gameplay of relationships.  After you marry them or they become your lover, they're kind of boring.  Often, it turns into a "manage your love life" simulator after you get with them in which you then need to dedicate time and effort into keeping them happy instead of messing with the core gameplay (Harvest Moon, anyone?).

It is what it is.  I'd love it to me more realistic, but I know I won't get it because it's boring.

 

[BlissAuthority]

Paging SLEEP, SLEEP to the thread on rela- oh, you're here already?  Great.

I generally go with Trust, Affection, and three or four ethical values for this sort of thing because I'm a big Bliss Stage and Ultima nerd because it beats the hell out of games that just have what I've termed "affection."

Calling it 'rivalry' sets my teeth on edge because it implies opposition.  You don't "overcome" a would be lover in a healthy relationship.

 

[SLEEP]

Paging SLEEP, SLEEP to the thread on rela- oh, you're here already?  Great.

I generally go with Trust, Affection, and three or four ethical values for this sort of thing because I'm a big Bliss Stage and Ultima nerd because it beats the hell out of games that just have what I've termed "affection."

Calling it 'rivalry' sets my teeth on edge because it implies opposition.  You don't "overcome" a would be lover in a healthy relationship.

i was paged and oh... oh

oh ok

That last thing that I bolded is super-important and I can't believe I forgot to mention it! I guess that's why I said "include multiple valid outcomes as there are multiple desirable ways to relate to a person" in my original post though. Romance isn't some be-all-to-end-all goal for how you'd want to relate to a person, and is frankly put up on a pedestal far too often, that being the nicest way to put it. It's problematic for rivalry to be a part of a healthy romance, yeah, but it would be super-duper neat to have romance, rivalry, and more as separate fleshed-out valid relationship routes. I guess that's what I was thinking, I didn't even think of romance and rivalry being part of the same path.. it would be just too bad for me...

 

[Atlas Rose]

I've been tossing around ideas for making a dating sim after IGMC is over. If I could figure it out, there's be a hand full of variables, which would start higher or lower depending on the NPC. Trust, comfort, and attraction were the main ones.

For example, NPC 1 is very naive, so her trust and comfort start higher while attraction is low. NPC 2 however is very shy but crushes on you in secret, so his attraction is very high while his comfort is low.

 

[Kes]

Atlas Rose, please refrain from necro-posting in a thread. Necro-posting is posting in a thread that has not had posting activity in over 30 days. You can review our forum rules here. Thank you.