•

Relationship Mechanics Work Because The Game's Creatives Value Human Complexities

https://www.themarysue.com/the-baldurs-gate-3-relationship-mechanics-work-because-the-creators-value-complexity/

Hearing what it was like to write, shoot, and animate 'Baldur's Gate 3' definitely explains why the romances and intimate moments feel so real.

Relationship Mechanics Work Because The Game's Creatives Value Human Complexities

Hearing what it was like to write, shoot, and animate 'Baldur's Gate 3' definitely explains why the romances and intimate moments feel so real.

48 comments

The_Terrible_Humbaba

•

I personally don't think the mechanics work that well or are very well thought out. This mainly due to 4 factors which, all together, just make the romances seem really forced, as well as annoying and unbearable sometimes. With maybe 1 exception that I know of out of the 9 companions:

All companions are bisexual
All companions are attracted to the player
When attracted to the player they will all actively make a move on the player, instead of waiting for the player to chose to hit on one of them
The dialogue trees are way too heavy on romance, to the point that sometimes the only friendly options seem way too intimate and even flirty.

Just 2 of those would be fine, maybe 3, but 4 really pushes it.

Part of what I mean by friendly options seeming way too intimate, is that instead of the game giving you friendly and obviously romantic options, it often seems to compress all of that into just one option (or just one way that the character acts) which skirts the line between friendly and flirty so as to try and retain plausible deniability ("I'm not interested in that character") while still giving you a way to role-play the romance ("That was clearly flirting/an intimate romantic moment").

Don't even get me started on Gale. His affinity was over 80 before Act I was over, and at one point I had four dialogue options out of which only one didn't seem flirty (the one I chose). Then, after he said we were friends, I had three choices "I want to be more than friends / We're not friends / That depends, what do you like about me?". Out of those, the third one is the one I went with, but even that seems a bit flirty to me. Then later he says he needs to talk to me "urgently", so my character goes to him, sits quite close to him in a way I would consider intimate and more than friendly, and he then professes his love for me.

Other than Gale: Shadowheart was quite easy to romance; Lae'zel said she liked my sweat or something; Wyll I've definitely had more-than-friendly conversations with; Astarion, simply due to his personality, has been hitting on the entire time despite me barely using him*. Halsin I don't use, Minthara is FUBAR, and I think Jaheira cannot be romanced. Karlach might be the only one I've used that hasn't hit on me yet.

*And I wouldn't even mind Astarian's personality if it wasn't for everything else.

Anomander

•

Just 2 of those would be fine, maybe 3, but 4 really pushes it.

Yeah. Like, I get that having a little harem of named followers all lusting after the MC slightly is ... the sort of RP fantasy that some people want. I appreciate that Larian put that option in the game - and the ol' "horny bard" trope absolutely comes from very real players wanting to be sexually attractive and competent in their escapist fantasy game. I get that. It's just not my vibe.

As someone who doesn't play games for romantic fantasy fulfillment - my biggest gripe with BG3 is that it feels like characters I like hanging out with have no concept of "we are friends" without suggesting romance is a logical next step, and are at incel levels of checking if maybe I've reconsidered and we can bang now?

Which also makes the fact that a lot of companion conversations feel like a minefield of "oops actually romance" dialogue options even more frustrating. I'm having a blast RPing an older dude who had a nice settled life prior to the Leech and just wants to get back home and put his feet up, but I've chosen a few response options I thought were just snarky or jokes and ... oh wait, we're being romantic now. Goddamn it, F8.

peppersky

•

Halsin will literally confess his love for you after you ask him about his romantic life once. It's ridiculous. And it is way too easy otherwise to have maxed out affinity with everyone in your camp, everyone loves the player being a good-two-shoes. Seriously have no idea where these articles come from that praise the companion mechanics in any way.

mothersprotege

•

Even as a dark urge murderhobo, I have near max affinity with all the companions I haven't killed yet. Gale might seem like a nice enough fellow, but he's raised no objections to my bloody agenda. I will say, I wish there was a tad more flexibility with the romance system; I turned down Lae'zel way back in Act I, but it'd be nice to have the option to start things up again when >!Shadowheart kinda friendzones you for Shar!<

mjsaber

•

I'm right there with you. I'm actively trying not to have sex with anyone and the game makes it hard just to talk to them sometimes, and even then the 'non-horny' option is often borderline horny or could be a double entendre.

ulu_mulu

•

I would like it more nuanced like in Bioware games (ME, DA, SWTOR): some companions are bisexual, some are homo only, some are hetero only.

I don't mind some being straightforward and persistent but I would also like some being shy and not initiate romance if it isn't you who hit on them.

It would make for more "realistic" personalities, in my opinion.

stopthatgirl7

•

The only problem is, people complained vehemently over BioWare having characters with any sexuality that’s not player-sexual, and immediately mod out those gender limitations on romancing. Just look at the mods to make Dorian and Suvi straight, and to make Jack and Tali bi.

ulu_mulu

•

Is that why Larian made everyone bisex? Those kind of complaints don't make any sense IMO, it's fine to have mods tho.

stopthatgirl7

•

Probably. Personally, I love characters having their own sexuality. It gives me a reason to play have more than once with different genders.

And honestly, it’s actually very creepy to mod Dorian straight/bi in Dragon Age Inquisition, if you know his backstory.

UnknownCircle

•

As someone who is generally a fan of your first 2 points, the latter two really get to me sometimes. I like the characters being forward, but if I indicate that I'm not interested I'd like them to kinda back off. Sometimes I don't even talk to certain companions because all their dialogue options are veiled flirtations. I'd like some characters to be friends and others to be romance options.

Gale is just a straight menace, every single interaction feels romance adjacent. Halsin keeps hinting at it, not nearly at the level of Gale but definitely is a constant undertone. Shadowheart was on my multi-romance train but, I decided to go forward with Laezel so I had to cut that one off. So Shadowheart is firmly in the friendly companion camp now.

Karlach, Astarion, Wyll, and Shadowheart are my mostly not too flirty companions. Astarion in particular has been great, I think I pissed him off in the early game with all my good choices so he just acts like a good friend. Which I appreciate.

I honestly didn't realize that affinity would activate romance mode for everyone. I just didn't want to piss some characters off and make them leave the party because they hated my character. Also didn't want to miss any affinity related (non-romance) quests.

Also shoutout to the biggest bro, my non-companion, Dame Aylin. She's the bro that I want my other friend companions to be.

BrianTheeBiscuiteer

•

When attracted to the player they will all actively make a move on the player, instead of waiting for the player to chose to hit on one of them

From what I recall of Dragon Age: Origins the romance was player initiated in a fairly natural way (e.g. asking for a kiss instead of a "thanks", making flirty puns). If you [personally] didn't like the NPC it was fairly easy to keep things platonic.

stopthatgirl7

•

Whereas in Mass Effect, if you weren’t interested, you could never choose the top dialogue option talking to them or else you’d end up accidentally initiating a romance.

Brunbrun6766

•

Most didn't work for me. Many felt forced. Complete 2 quests for this companion and suddenly they love you and want to fuck at the soonest opportunity

GuinnessChocolates

•

Err how many quests do you make someone go on before you'll sleep with them? Because for me, two very dangerous quests involving swords and magic would be plenty.

buffaloboobs

•

Tbh, I'd fuck someone for going on ONE quest for me. Doesn't even have to be dangerous, could just be something like, Can you swing by the shop on the way over? Thank you 🥵

Mongostein

•

Well, buffaloboobs, have I got an offer for you!

buffaloboobs

•

I just need one bag of ice, rum, a blender, and whatever else to make some piña coladas. Bring these things and I will share my body with you, githyanki.

bilb

•

::: spoiler spoiler Lae'zel, at least, seemed to just want to fuck, not fall in love. :::

goforliftoff

•

Right? I don’t have her as part of my active party - she just hangs out at camp. So one night I strolled over and was like, “Yo, you seem to be looking at me differently.” And then, basically, she was all, “Yep, you’re doing shit to me. Let’s fuck.”

Meanwhile, I’m crushing hard on Shadowheart, taking her along on all the adventures, chatting her up, and all I’ve got to show for it is a stupid kiss and her giddy schoolgirl remarks when I speak with her now.

stopthatgirl7

•

Whereas everybody is trying to get into my tiefling’s pants, except Halsin, the one she’s all but throwing her panties at yet getting nowhere with. I even had Wyll dance for me out of nowhere, and Karlach’s recently been like, “hey girl,” but Halsin’s still barely giving me the time of day.

My poor girl has definitely screamed into her pillow at least once this whole adventure.

Nepenthe

•

Wyll knows how to dance? I can't get him to do shit for me. I mean, yeah, he's not exactly the love interest I'm going for, but we're still hanging out at medium relationship-wise and perhaps because of that (?), nothing interesting has happened since we squared away the Karlach thing.

Literally nothing, despite having comparatively little to do before moving on now. All Wyll knows how to do is well met, accidentally wear helmet during dialogue, fall into chasm and die.

Which happened again during the hag fight, btw. It's never anyone else, just him. I don't want to take his thing.

stopthatgirl7

•

Yeah, one day I went to talk to Wyll, and it went into a cutscene of him practicing his ballroom dancing, and then he shoots his shot. My poor, socially awkward tiefling, a ranger who normally lives in the woods away from people, was not at all ready for any of it.

I never take Wyll out because he’s made of tissue paper, so I wasn’t expecting it.

Poggervania

•

Poggervania

•

Lae’zel definitely softens up as the romance goes on through the game, to not spoil too much without saying more.

UnknownCircle

•

I feel like the relationship with Lae'zel grows a lot over the course of the game. But you have to really commit to going that route.

fireflash38

•

Yeah, but then you find out Gith lay eggs, which raises weird questions. Idk, maybe their closest analog is a platypus, which would make them far more adorable if they werent trying to separate your head from your neck so often.

stopthatgirl7

•

Oh, Lae’zel has a conversation option where you can ask her about it.

samus12345

•

I usually avoid romance options in games as I never like the characters enough for that, but bravo to the developers for getting me to actively romance Karlach. But boo to them for making her doomed! I agree with the comments that say the characters are way too thirsty for the main character. It gets annoying having to keep shooing them away.

Braydox_ofAstroya12

•

This is the same mary sue site that said aunti ekel design is anti Semitic.

stopthatgirl7

•

Well, I hate to break it to you, but yes. It is. Not intentionally so, I’m sure, but using a large hook nose in a bad character does spring from an antisemitic stereotype. I’m sure Larian didn’t do it on purpose, because “big-nose baddie” is kind of ingrained in western cultural at this point, but those are the roots of it.

Understanding the Antisemitic History of the “Hooked Nose” Stereotype - Media Diversity Institute

Braydox_ofAstroya12

•

No its not the roots of it at all ugly character traits are not exclusive to anti antisemitic stereotypes.

Looking at aunt ekel and thinking ah jewish stereotype isnt the normal reaction thats a self report. Grievence mythology is cancer

stopthatgirl7

•

…Did you even read what I linked to? I’m honestly curious.

Braydox_ofAstroya12

•

It did give me a good laugh with how uninformed its article is. And well given the source im not surprised that its perspective is extremely limited with that authors world view

stopthatgirl7

•

Ok, I can see continuing this conversation will go nowhere for either of us, so you have a nice day.

Braydox_ofAstroya12

•

Where did you want it to go? . Do you think that author was correct in thinking aunti eckel was designed to be anti semetic?

stopthatgirl7

•

I don’t think it was designed by Larian intentionally to be antisemetic, no. Which I said in my first comment. It’s that the trope they used of the “hook-nosed witch” (and that steals babies!) has antisemitic roots. It’s just it’s so engrained in western culture most folks don’t realize at all where the image came from. I don’t at all think Larian did it maliciously or consciously.

And as for where I expected the conversation to go, well, I don’t engage in conversations where someone is being aggressive or completely dismissive of another point of view. It’s a waste of time and I don’t fight with angry randos on the internet. I have better things to do.

wahming

•

On a side note, aside from our other ongoing discussion:

I'm a believer that at some point, we need to let go of the origin of things and embrace their current meaning. Language evolves. So do other cultural aspects. Just because something was once offensive doesn't mean it has to be that way forever. And I say this as a PoC.

wahming

•

Maybe in the west, but we do it in Asia, and we couldn't care less about Jews.

Dr_Cog

•

It started in the West, though.

More extreme example: the original version of Jynx the Pokemon is not intentionally racist, but it started as an adoption of Western blackface cartoons. Is it a common trope in Asia? Yes. Is it intended to be racist? Not at all. Is it actually racist? Yes.

wahming

•

Blackface is directly traceable back to slavery, and no earlier. Something as simple as hooked noses or ugly physical characteristics, however? That's universal.

stopthatgirl7

•

Because there’s never any influence in art styles and tropes between Asia and Europe, right?

Oh wait.

wahming

•

Unless you're claiming that hooked noses and other ugly physical characteristics were never used before the Nazis, which I very much doubt, what basis do you have for claiming that ALL such portrayals today are antisemitic? The world does not revolve under Israel. It is possible for other cultures to have aspects that, believe it or not, do not relate directly to western culture.

stopthatgirl7

•

They were used before the Nazis; what are you talking about? This type of imagery goes back to the Middle Ages, well before Nazi Germany. For example, the stereotypical pointed witch hat? It’s based on the “judenhut,” which Jewish people were required to wear in the 1200s (see image).

And ffs, I’m not saying they are always antisemitic, I am saying they have their ROOTS in antisemitism. I know nuances is often lost on the internet, but please look at the words I am actually using, not what you think I’m saying.

…and why are you bringing Israel into this? Wtf?

wahming

•

At this point I'm not clear what you're trying to say. You're contradicting the article which you linked to yourself. The article states that these imagery only started being associated with the Jews during the Nazi era. You claim otherwise.

I am saying they have their ROOTS in antisemitism

How can caricature, which has been around for millenia, have its roots in antisemitism? Especially in the context of Eastern cultures which couldn't give a shit about Jews and the Holocaust. One century, we were all making fun of each other, but the next century we were copying the Nazis?

stopthatgirl7

•

Why on earth are you focusing so much on the Nazis, especially after I pointed out how some of the imagery used for witches and hags goes back to the 1200s?

Antisemitic caricatures were applied to witches (in fact, “witch’s sabbaths” used to be called “witch’s synagogues”), and that imagery was solidified with the printing press and normalized in Europe as what a “witch” looked like. Then, the modern era, that same imagery was used in Disney films (ie, the witch disguise the wicked queen used when she gave Snow White the poisoned apple) and other kinds of media, because that’s just what a “witch” looks like. The image of a “wicked witch” spread around the world, including Asia (because how common is a large hooked nose over here anyway, and yes, I say “here” because I’ve lived in Asia for 20 dang years now). People use that image of a “wicked witch” with, in general, no idea where it original came from. That’s why I say it has its roots in antisemitism but isn’t necessarily used with antisemitic intention or ever knowledge of where the imagery comes from.

mawkishdave

•

The companies are the worse part of the game for me. I end up using a lot of the hiring in my game