I watched the dev stream about the Age of Heroes.
It is cool that they are making the companion stuff, and I think it is cool that they “finally” had that idea designed into practical feature.
Nothing to comment there. One thing Dennis said about the story of “romances” with companions got me thinking. The thing to the effect that the first design choice that started the discussion was about romances, and that was the first decision made to not have them, because no matter how well you do it, it is always “cringe”.
I do agree that almost all games people talk about are cringe, and a lot of them people do cite as “good” are cringe at many points.
“C’mon Miranda, you want this” - Groomers all over the World were taking notes on that one
Liara in ME1 will come with Ashley to “solve a problem” that you might not even have touched in the whole game to that point. You might not even have exchanged words with either of them, THEY WILL come with that dialogue regardless.
Fallout 4, those other Bethesda and Bioware games people talk about, which to be honest, all have the same problem, not to mention the poster example of cringe, BG3. To insert romantic arcs in a game, they need to matter, and for them to matter, they need to impact gameplay, but if you do that, you must design it also to not interfere with the gameplay of people who do not engage in them, therefore they “must matter” but they cant “matter that much”.
Design then is compelled to make it cringe, because it must be relevant, but not important. Impacting but optional. So it will be always cringe. I do agree with that.
I think that the way FFXIV solve that question is kinda interesting. It is obvious that different characters in there had “tension building” with the PC, but it is never realized in the game. People are free to explore in their head cannons, fan fics, whatever, but the game just leaves it there to be implied or nuanced. WoW tried it too, and failed miserably, entering cringe territory for the same reasons.
FFXIV solve many problems that are concerned with the problems with any individual or personal arc. At least it did for “a while”.
You are the “hero” of the realm you are, and you are the only one. The story is about you. Soon in the game you get a thing called the Azem Crystal, or something like that.
The idea of the Azem Crystal (I had some research before posting it, so … dont care) is that it links the many parts of the ancient Council of the Fourteen. Azem was a “hero type”, and that was not an actual name, but a position, like those of Fandaniel, Hydelin, etc. The Azem was tasked with knowing cultures and peoples, and cutting to the important part, YOU as the PC is one of the multiple fragments of the whole being that was Azem. When you are to enter a Duty (instances in FFXIV), the idea is that to the whole MSQ story you are the only one, but when you do a Duty for the MSQ and a group of “heroes” face a challenge, you use the Azem crystal to call upon the different “you” in several realms to form a group. SO the once powerful being that was Azem was divided, and each player character is the hero of their own stories in the MSQ, but when an instance is needed to be cleared, they solve the problem of personal story vs multiplayer game with that.
That way, you can experience your own story through the MSQ, but still play a multiplayer game. It is nice, and a design choice that allows for some “cringe removal”. You dont need to make a story tailored to be linear, hinge on specifics, but you also dont need to pin everything into everything in the game to make sense.
Solo games have no excuse to be cringe. But they often are. MMORPGs have the FFXIV design option. But Conan Exiles is neither.
So I think: Forget romance, the idea of a theme park model story in a co-op small server game has the huge possibility of being terrible.
WoW for example has “escort quests” in which you might be wandering with Thrall. The crappy idea that when you see another player doing the same quest they are escorting a “regular Orc” while you are escorting the “mighty Thrall” is cringe. It makes no sense. So you are lost in the Shadowlands and saving “heroes”, but there you see another “maw walker all powerful” escorting a “nobody”. That is a problem that applies to any situation in which something must be a personal quest that you need to share level with other players.
Solo has its problems too. Mass Effect. You have your nice little Arc with Liara, lets say. Cool. Most of the game seems a personal quest you go with Liara, and all the diaogue, emotional entanglement. Mass Effect 2 you met her again, she reminesces. Then Mass Effect 3, you two go save the World, and she sadly puts your plaque when you die. A lot of emotional moments, her doubts, her sadness, you like a emotional bulwark with her. (I am avoiding the cringe moments to make a point). All is well and except some cringe, it seems like a well round story.
Then, and then … you play again. You decide to be with Ash instead.
To your surprise, Liara will do around 85% of the things she does when you romance her the same way, say the same things, have the same moments and do the same actions. All of that was not because you romanced her, but because her character is writen to do that “regardless”. If you wanted to get an emotional value, you lost it when you allow players to romance “someone else” and see through the “bullcrap”.
Cyberpunk, Fallout 4, the same exact thing. The overwhelming majority of the content is made the same way, the same words, the same actions, regardless of specific individual interactions.
So I wonder how will the game implement those companions, romance or not, in a way you avoid “server immersion breaking” problems with several people doing the same “theme park ride” but with only one companion, and how it will avoid the personal challenge of tailoring a narrative that allows players the freedom of a sandbox, and yet preventing them from seeing the Penrose Steps: