Suggestion for limited romance options.

[Durandal_IV]

This has been talked about to death and back, but I'm posting this because I actually have a suggestion as to how to fix it that might appeal to everyone.

When it comes to the ingame romances, Cyberpunk 2077's biggest weakness is the lack of options. You basically get one choice for each gender of two sexualities: 2 straight and 2 gay.

Honestly, this was a really dumb design choice as it took away player choice for a game that marketed heavily around it. A lot of people focused on Judy when the game first came out, but this was true for every gamer, regardless of preference. You were potentially stuck with characters you just might not be interested in solely because of personal preference.

Now, I understand the immersion argument, and I agree to a point, but, at the same time, Cyberpunk 2077 is fantasy (or sci-fi, technically) escapism. That's part of why romances are usually playersexual.

What I don't get, and this applies to all rpgs with romances, is why they don't let you just toggle your preferences in the game?

Players could go into settings (or set it at start of new game, whatever) and switch the romance options to their preferences. Default/canon settings, hetero, homo, bi settings, or even turn off romances altogether. You can even let players individually customize the individual npcs. Hell, they could tie customized npc preferences to a combination of body, voice or genitals. That one option in character creation could actually mean more than just a stupid marketing decision/pr stunt.

To my knowledge, no one has ever actually done this before. Sure, modders will go in and potentially make the game open to everyone, but actually letting players make the choice themselves?

Not aware of anyone who did that (let me know if I'm wrong).

Doing this would also have the benefit of appealing to everyone. Players wouldn't have to worry about their own orientations being represented, because they could just set it up so that it is.

Something like this has the added benefit of not requiring CDPR to add more romances (they might require more recording depending on whether or not it was done), and would fall in line with their marketing campaign to appeal to everyone.

This is something I have been passively wondering aboutbfor a while, long before Cyberpunk 2077, but this game really made me give it some serious consideration.

I really would like to see this game succeed, and while the romance options really won't fix everything, they seem like a good place to start since CDPR recently released that expanded romance patch.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Maybe I misunderstood, but you means, for example, at the start select "hetero" and then all the LI in the game would be available as LI ?
If yes, in my opinion, generally when characters are "player sexual" in a game, it always end (or almost) with bunch of bad characters/romances... Mainly because dialogues/stories/backgrounds are generally "random/weak" to be easily adapted for each player gender.

 

[Durandal_IV]

Not quite. Select hetero, and everyone is straight; they prefer opposite genders. Gay? They're all gay. Bi? Essentially playersexual.

Custom settings would be the type of thing where you could mix and match. Kerry is straight, River's gay, Meredith just won't touch your poor, street punk at all.

I'm talking actual customization of npc preferences.

 

[lyin321]

Why not just make them herosexual? Why add all these extra steps?

While I don't fully agree with @LeKill3rFou that this leads to bad characters, it is basically the main reason a lot of people are for set sexuality. That this allows the developers to make a deeper characters.

Post automatically merged: Apr 20, 2022

Personally, I liked the compromise DAI made - they have set sexuality, but you are allowed to flirt with them.

 

[GrimReaper801]

Well, I don't understand how this differs from playersexual period. It's just extra steps.

I'm of a similar mind as @LeKill3rFou. This kind of romance requires the romances to be far more generic to be easily adaptable to the player. It's not necessarily bad but it's definitely of lesser quality than characters having set sexuality.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Yep, "bad" maybe wasn't the right word, but less interesting for sure

 

[lyin321]

Yep, "bad" maybe wasn't the right word, but less interesting for sure

Still disagree - would the DA2's romances be better if they weren't herosexual?

 

[Durandal_IV]

Writing a good romance and an NPC's sexuality are two entirely separate things.

If the former is dependent on the latter, someone is doing it wrong. In other story based games where sexuality is part of character development, it makes sense, but in an RPG? Player choice is always better.

Edit: Most RPGs are set in worlds where stigmas around sexuality aren't usually mentioned or discussed, so there isn't any reason for sexual orientation to be an issue. Cyberpunk 2077 basically falls into this category. Edit end.


Games have started adding customizable difficulty settings, and this is essentially a progression from that.

Take Eidos Montréal's Guardians of the Galaxy. Their difficulty settings have the standard, but they also allowed for custom settings. Yes, it's more steps, but it allows players to set it to their own preferences.

Pathfinder already did this, but I mention the Guardians game because it isn't Real-time-with-pause. I'm sure there are others, but this came to mind first.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Still disagree - would the DA2's romances be better if they weren't herosexual?

I suppose it's "mostly" the work it would require to achieve it.
In short, generally (on games that I played) when characters don't have "gender preferences", they are "forgettable".
(there are exceptions like Liara, but it's a character "written" for that, with a background for that).

 

[lyin321]

it's more the work it would require to achieve it.

That is true. One of the reasons I am fine with whatever direction the devs choose

 

[LeKill3rFou]

That is true. One of the reasons I am fine with whatever direction the devs choose

I for say the truth, I like the way Cyberpunk did it. The first time when I "tried" with Panam (female V and touched her leg) and obviously, nope... I found that "good/fun" and not disappointing at all
These kind of moments are "great" (right time) :

 

[Durandal_IV]

I for say the truth, I like the way Cyberpunk did it. The first time when I "tried" with Panam (female V and touched her leg) and obviously, nope... I found that "good/fun" and not disappointing at all
These kind of moments are "great" (right time) :

That wouldn't change though. That interaction would still be there, you'd just have the option of choosing under what parameters she would do that.

Devs could probably add a random button for people who want to be surprised.

This is more about advocating player choice, and letting people play how THEY want to play. You enjoy that rejection, but others won't.

I'm not even saying that the Dev's artistic vision shouldn't matter. A default setting allows them to keep it.

 

[strangerr3]

No, I like it the way it is now.

 

[Deniryer]

I suppose it's "mostly" the work it would require to achieve it.
In short, generally (on games that I played) when characters don't have "gender preferences", they are "forgettable".
(there are exceptions like Liara, but it's a character "written" for that, with a background for that).

It's not character it is the entire race. Asari doesn't care about your reproductive organs,pure pleasure or anything that human would do. They're mono-gender spices where procreation and sex for pleasure is achieved via spiritual/metaphysical connection with it's own complications like Ardat Yakshi which is a result of pureblood mating.

Damn... Story and World Building in Mass Effect was better than in some of the books I've read.

Regarding "player-sexual" options - they'll be blunt, dull and generic because it is just foolish to equate M/M or F/F relationship to M/F or F/M relationship. No straight/homosexual relationship is same, people have different experiences. You just cannot tell me that two masculine type men would behave exactly the same as mix of feminine & masculine., let alone people with just different hobbies.

You can see romance option in Witcher series. Shani, Yennefer and Triss are completely different with unique set of interest and activities.

Even in Bioware games there is a good variety. Allister behaving like proper, shy, virgin Templar. Straight forward, removed from society Morrigan. Lelianna with her religious believes and Zeravan promiscuous elf raised in brothel.

Current problem with romances in this game is not the variety it is just the way they're handled. I loved my romance with Kerry it just developed too quickly and it ended the same way - in a rush. Also you've a fact that the 2 out 4 options play a role in the story, the other 2 you can completely miss out on without even knowing, but that's the general problem with the main story - it is on rails and doesn't branch out in any way, shape or form.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

That wouldn't change though. That interaction would still be there, you'd just have the option of choosing under what parameters she would do that.

Devs could probably add a random button for people who want to be surprised.

The main problem is not the "option", it's because the characters are not written to be ajusted. It would require a bunch of work to achieve it.
For example, the "sex scenes" (just my opinion) :
- Panam in the basilisk with female V would seem weird.
- With Judy with male V would also seem weird.
So two scenes for each characters, different dialogues lines during the game and so on.

That's why Devs (in most games) tend to :
Either to let characters quite "generic", so "less interesting and deep".
Either go for characters with gender preferences, but more "deep and developped".
Either avoid any romance option^^

 

[Durandal_IV]

It's not character it is the entire race. Asari doesn't care about your reproductive organs,pure pleasure or anything that human would do. They're mono-gender spices where procreation and sex for pleasure is achieved via spiritual/metaphysical connection with it's own complications like Ardat Yakshi which is a result of pureblood mating.

Damn... Story and World Building in Mass Effect was better than in some of the books I've read.

Regarding "player-sexual" options - they'll be blunt, dull and generic because it is just foolish to equate M/M or F/F relationship to M/F or F/M relationship. No straight/homosexual relationship is same, people have different experiences. You just cannot tell me that two masculine type men would behave exactly the same as mix of feminine & masculine., let alone people with just different hobbies.

You can see romance option in Witcher series. Shani, Yennefer and Triss are completely different with unique set of interest and activities.

Even in Bioware games there is a good variety. Allister behaving like proper, shy, virgin Templar. Straight forward, removed from society Morrigan. Lelianna with her religious believes and Zeravan promiscuous elf raised in brothel.

Current problem with romances in this game is not the variety it is just the way they're handled. I loved my romance with Kerry it just developed too quickly and it ended the same way - in a rush. Also you've a fact that the 2 out 4 options play a role in the story, the other 2 you can completely miss out on without even knowing, but that's the general problem with the main story - it is on rails and doesn't branch out in any way, shape or form.

DA2 had a few great romances, and they were all player sexual. Ultimately, it boils down to the quality of writing. Sexuality, whether it's fluid or solid, does not automatically improve writing.

Take the Tali or Garrus romances in ME2/3. They would still be fantastic even if there were no restrictions. Garrus isn't even actually attracted to humans, just Shepard. He's also probably one of the best written romances I've seen in a game.

Witcher 3's romances were good because they were all based on pre-existing characters. Most of the work was done there. They were also designed with Geralt specifically in mind, so the writing was simpler.

Post automatically merged: Apr 20, 2022

The main problem is not the "option", it's because the characters are not written to be ajusted. It would require a bunch of work to achieve it.
For example, the "sex scenes" (just my opinion) :
- Panam in the basilisk with female V would seem weird.
- With Judy with male V would also seem weird.
So two scenes for each characters, different dialogues lines during the game and so on.

That's why Devs (in most games) tend to :
Either to let characters quite "generic", so "less interesting and deep".
Either go for characters with gender preferences, but more "deep and developped".
Either avoid any romance option^^

I'm aware it would be quite the undertaking from a technical perspective. From a narrative perspective, it would actually require very little.

Honestly, the entire thing would pretty much be on them.

 

[pliskards]

That's why Devs (in most games) tend to :
Either to let characters quite "generic", so "less interesting and deep".
Either go for characters with gender preferences, but more "deep and developped".
Either avoid any romance option^^

Thinking that what makes a character (or human being) "deep and developed" is who they are interested in having intercourse with is... weird.

Panam is the perfect example of a quality character who would work just fine as being player-sexual outside of how the actual sexual activity is performed in the vehicle.

I personally think making characters have sexual preferences rather than being player-sexual was to pander rather than a decision for what was best for the game.

 

[GrimReaper801]

Thinking that what makes a character (or human being) "deep and developed" is who they are interested in having intercourse with is... weird.

I'll let @LeKill3rFou correct me if I'm wrong but I believe he means the romance itself being deeper and more developed rather than the character itself. Language barrier n' all.

I personally think making characters have sexual preferences rather than being player-sexual was to pander rather than a decision for what was best for the game.

This essentially boils down to different school of thoughts. You think they made these sexual preferences to pander, I consider making every romance player sexual to be far more proof of pandering than having set preferences.

 

[Iferrebee]

Modders are amazing. Give them time and i am pretty sure they will fix what CDPR cannot

 

[Durandal_IV]

I'll let @LeKill3rFou correct me if I'm wrong but I believe he means the romance itself being deeper and more developed rather than the character itself. Language barrier n' all.


This essentially boils down to different - school of thoughts. You think they made these sexual preferences to pander, I consider making every romance player sexual to be far more proof of pandering than having set preferences.

To be honest, I think you're both right. One way or the other, someone would argue that devs are pandering.

That's actually why I suggested the whole toggle (for lack of a better word) thing.

Some people hate player sexual, some people prefer it. The toggle thing, as convoluted as it sounds, would pander to everyone.