For me it is like this Bioware: companions (at least they used to) and main story they want to tell you Obsidian: factions/different states/races representing the world, including gods Owclat: world building/world realisation, even recent Rogue Trader it is nothing like it (it is giant, massice scale it is lived in world fully, like idk how to describe) Larian: honestly, gameplay, either systems or emergent like gameplay, especially in combat, and design (map design, encounter design)

Romance contributes to the storytelling and player immersion. As long as it’s optional in an RPG I don’t see why people get upset when it’s included.

I think love is a core human motivation, making it essential to telling a story that is grounded in our shared humanity. If you want to create a fully flushed out character, the writer needs to have some sense as to what motivates the character in terms of what/whom they love. The most common villain tropes are characters who have been neglected, spurned, or lost whom they love, and concomitantly you rarely see a good protagonist of a heroic epic that is not motivated by love, even if that love is for a friend ("Mr. Frodo!") or more abstractly the hero's home/community ("for the shire!"). So when it comes to being the protagonist of the story in a video game, I think the romantic love option can be a nice change of pace, as opposed to say "for the love of all that is good in this world." Not necessary, but a nice alternative to the standard "generalized love" tropes we see in other RPGs.

It matters as long as it doesn't take away from the story or possibly improves it.

Can I imagine BG3 without Minthara? ME without Liara? Cyberpunk 2077 without Judy? DAO without Morigan? No I do love romance options when they are good. They are written thoughtfully and they aren't trying to force characters onto me. I did love Grieving Mother in Pillars 1 and she wasn't romancable, but I kinda felt that she was as my watcher went out of his way to ensure the outcomes she desired are met even if he didn't fully agreed or even understood them. More than romance I want compelling characters. Romance is just a satisfying aspect when that first part is done well.

Romance is like icing on the cake, But if the Cake is crap no amount of Icing will save it.

I think romances is just as part of the RPG as the other parts and they make games just a little bit better, little more beautiful and intimate. Romance options can't make the whole game bad or good, it is just seasoning for mine dish. in case of Solas there is SO much more behind romance like the welwritten story, romance is just dessert, wellmade chef-kiss bittersweet dessert... it is Sera's footage but we all know which OST is playing

I think the romances add another layer of depth to the games. When a game has great companions and an engaging romance option it really puts the role playing in RPG. In BG3 and the Dragon Age series the player is the director of the movie being played out. And just like movies having relationships woven into the story, so it is with deep RPG's.

Romance matters a lot to me in RPG's..is how I get attached to some of the characters. The most memorable ones that made me fall in love with CRPG's started with Viconia in BG2 followed by Aribeth in Neverwinter Nights (I had her ring with me all the way to Hordes of the Underdark) to Morrigan in DAO (similar thing to Aribeth) and I consider her one of the best written companions of all time then Mass Effect 1-3 (Tali all the way) and now, Cyberpunk without Judy and finally, with BG3, Shadowheart pretty much gave me Viconia vibes. This is why everytime a CRPG or a narrative heavy game that has a lot of RPG elements and party members/companions not having romance as an option makes me disappointed, because it just gives me the feeling that the writers didn't wanna challenge themselves to write romances that are compelling (Avowed). I guess I'm just one of those "typical" CRPG enjoyers that care more about writing, narrative story and characters than the gameplay aspect of these games so that's why I value romance so highly. And yes, I am aware that even Chris Avellone, which is one of my favorite writers from the games that I love, has also said that he doesn't enjoy writing romance in video games. These are my 2 cents on the matter.

I prefer my rpg's to have romance. For me its an essential character aspect. The budget excuse is difficult to shallow when obsidian is a microsoft company.

I pretty much exclusively play games with romance. So I tend to play farming sims, visual novels, and some RPGs. There are some exceptions (Pokemon, Don't Starve for example). I check if games have romance and if the answer is no I think it's a shame and move on. If a game I don't usually play has romance I will be more likely to check it out, but it's not guaranteed since there are so many other games that I like have it. I'm interested in Hades because I know there are some people to marry (Thanatos as one of my favourite Greek Gods at that) but roguelikes are just stressful to me so I'd rather just watch someone play it. But there is just something nice about being able to see another level to people that you only see when you romance them and the complications it can add. There is something special about a game with a deep lore, fascinating, multilayered companions, and an overarching plot that feels like it matters. I love DA Lore - you can get so lost in it. But Bioware has always cared about NPCs and companions so the romance works, but nothing sucks more than a game that says it offers romance but only does so on a superficial level (AC Odyssey comes to mind). If the devs want a game with companions but without romance I will not complain, I will just go to a game I know appeals to me instead. For me it's not disappointed about it even though I was interested at first, I'm just not their target audience. I hope their target audience is more than satisfied with what they get - I will be playing something else while they enjoy their game.

the solas romance was really good, i only wish there was more content to it

I've played RPGs without romance, but they honestly just don't really stick with me as much. Same for games with superficial or lazy romances. I think that BioWare spoiled me. I love that you can dictate the nature of your PC's relationships: platonic friendship, rivalry, romance, rivalmance, indifference, etc... It feels more immersive and fleshed out and interesting that way. It also raises the stakes when you care about the characters. Solas and Garrus are my respective canon romances in the flagship franchises, and Trespasser and ME3 made me full-on SOB at the end. No book, movie, TV show, or comic has EVER made me feel that deeply. That's why RPGs without meaningful interactivity kind of feel like... what's the point?

You say "lore isn't the main driver" for Bioware games, but that's only true for some fans/players. Other people are absolutely there for the lore/plot/story.

I think that not having a romance would be disappointing. It adds a level of depth to the character for the player to interact with that is lacking in games without it.

For me romance is an immersion thing. It breaks my suspension of disbelief to have a party of younger people of mixed sexuality and gender that spend so much time together, face danger, put their lives in each other's hands and not develop some feelings. Some of them are bound to be romantic. Does every single character need to be romancable? Probably not, but that's more believable than none at all.

It represents that shiny red cherry on top of a delicious cake. And Larian has made it more than well. Both the cake and the cherry.

Romances give an extra emotional layer to games. Knowing a character is romanceable leads players to invest more time into trying to understand what he/she likes/dislikes etc... Seeing a person that you've just invested hours into get injured (or other) plays on your empathy and can make you do silly things to save them because Hollywood told you they would do the same for you. ME2's Jack was one of the most memorable characters (imho) from the ME series because the layers she presented. This doesnt mean romances should be guaranteed, romanceable companions should not just fall into the player's laps just because they spoke to each other. Nothing beats a well crafted, nuanced romance plot. oh and if you're a cold hearted marketing person: S*x sells. Avatar, Titanic, etc... i think you'll find that theres always some form of romance in the biggest blockbuster movies.

You are fighting constantly, adrenaline is at max, constant danger, romance in a situation like this is only natural. I was annoyed about not being able to romance Captain Aeldys in PoE: Deadfire despite the constant flirting. She was my favorite. They have been working on Avowed for 5 years or more, the way I see it, the developers just don't want to put too much effort yet expect people to pay the same price as a game like BG3 that is actually worth the price. After Deadfire, I was looking forward to Avowed since I got invested in the Universe, now, after seeing that there are only 4 companions and there is no romance, it makes me think that they did not place too much effort in the interactions between the crew. If they at least add a brothel or something, then I might be interested again, let's not act like our characters would not have needs, especially if they travel with beautiful women.

I feel Witcher 3 has handled "Romances" in a very nuanced way that many other games can learn from. It doesn't get brought up because it doesn't have a traditional companion system and there's hardly any 'Dating' elements to it (give gifts to increase points, select big heart dialogue wheel option etc) ,. But I feel that is part of what makes it so natural and matured besides great dialogue. Cyberpunk's Panam romance is still my favourite to this date. As for obsidian, I really enjoyed helping Parvati's romance in Outer worlds. Romance can enhance the companion experience for sure, but you're right, it depends on the main focus of the game.

The games that don’t have a well written romance typically do not sell as well. I’m not talking about a dating simulator, I’m speaking of well crafted, deep, multilayered character development that features romance. Think about it…. If I’m fighting whatever dire world breaking monstrosity with you for several months….we are probably gonna develop some feelings. I just pulled you back from the brink of death AGAIN….that means something.

Yes and Shadowheart is my love

To me, it does. I would even say it's one of RPGs' biggest selling points.

It matters, enough said. It makes characters memorable and impressing, adding that to great writing. For 15 years I still remember Liara, Garrus, etc. Others names are who cannot be romanced just forgotten except for superbly written ones.

If you put beautiful and exotic women in front of me and don't give me the option to romance them then what's the point?

Romance for me is a big part of an RPG but that doesn't mean I'm not gonna play a game just cuz it doesn't have them

I don’t mind romances however a lot of developers put the cart before horse in not having good character writing to make those romances memorable to begin with. TLDR: Romances mean nothing if the character writing is poor.

It greatly enhances an already great game imo if done well. However it can be used as a crutch also, in ME Andromeda the relationships really kept me going when the rest of the experience was average. Overall, it makes games that much more personal and impactful for me. I truly like the relationship dynamics in BG3, P5, all Mass Effects, Witcher, Cyberpunk and there’s probably many more I’m forgetting atm.

Romance isn’t specifically why people play these games, but it should always be an option. They’re Role-Playing Games, you make your own character and story. Why wouldn’t your character have the ability to fall in love? I don’t know any RPG’s that prioritise romance over story/gameplay.

I think its a good downtime activity, at some point you get exhausted of non stop action. You may not like them but fishing minigames were designed for that purpose, of course i would chose romance minigames over those

Romance is about choice, take away that choice and you have less roleplay

I love romances in RPGs, at least when the companions are done well. Tali & Morrigan are two of my all time favorite characters in large part due to the romances you can have with them and seeing how they affect the arcs those characters go through.

Man, I love this game channel. It's really well done.

I’m a straight guy and I like the ‘option’ of feel more romance because it makes me feel more part of the world. Connections with companions are important because if my ally is an a$$ why would I fight beside him. Their doesn’t have to be romance but camaraderie is important when your on a team.

Romances for me is one of those things that can certainly tilt my purchasing decisions. Take Avowed and Geedfall 2 both games I'm fairly "eh" on. But because one has romance and one doesn't I'm more likely to pick up Greedfall 2 at full price than Avowed. The lack of romances makes that a play on sale game of it all. Games like Disco Elysium or Skald Against the black Priory I didn't have the expectation and it just looked great so I didn't care. Some games live Last Epoch, Diablo 4, Guild Wars 2, I don't expect them to have romances. At this point if you're making a AA or AAA rpg with companions as a focus you've got to understand that romances are a selling point. We'll see if it hurts Avowed in the long run.

It's not necessary important, but I won't lie and say there hasn't been games that the determining factor was that I heard there was a romance you could work towards forming. For example Greedfall or Terminator Resistance, which are not games I would normally just play but I heard there were romances so I checked them out. And in the end I ended up liking them. With something like Cyberpunk 2077 and Baldur's Gate 3, that wasn't the determining factor at all - but it was great to have them. So I'd prefer to have a romance in an RPG, but I won't necessarily need it.

Thanks for the video as always. Guess I am part of the 63% group. I figure, if the NPC's are great, interesting and can make great friendships with...Then wonderful!....But I f you are going to add Romance then ya need to do it right...With all the ups and downs and flowers. Also with Nudity, do it or don't. If ya do, then I want to see boucing boobies and flapping weenies. No middle ground. Incorperate it into the game or don't. Peace

I find it completely immersion breaking to think of a bunch of heroes swanning around in life or death situations with forced proximity for months or years on end and NOT needing to let off steam every now and then. I know damn well what I was like in my late teens to 30's and there's just no way lol. It seems VERY strange to me that a bunch of otherwise healthy, active, and at least minimally competent people in an RPG situation wouldn't at LEAST be falling in the sack with someone for a sanity break every few weeks. Oooh I don't know that POE didn't have the interpersonal drama! Obsidian definitely focus on world politics, but I don't know that they emphasise it more than the later Bioware games and Owlcat games. There was a HUGE push for romances to be added to the sequel (Deadfire) *because* there was so much drama and such heavy romance-coded interaction between the characters. I spent up until the last 20 hours or so of that game expecting a romance arc to kick in, because of how the companions interacted with the PC and each other. I was shocked there WEREN'T romances TBH. In a lot of ways Deadfire was *less* romance oriented because despite the plentiful romances they added, the dynamics between the companions was so watered down compared to POE. I think Obsidian don't add romances to most of their games because the lead devs openly admit they think romances have no place in RPG's, not because the writers don't include drama. TBH if they'd let their writers have free reign and do them *well* , most of their games would really benefit from romance because of how story rich and companion oriented they are. I loved the Pathfinder WOTR romances - They were definitely more like the original BG romances than more modern BW and Larian romances, but I thought they enhanced the overarching story pretty well. If the story and game is exceptional I don't *need* romance in the game, but I do find it weird and immersion breaking if it's not included. I definitely prefer romance arcs and will generally steer clear of an RPG that doesn't have them. Like with a lot of game features, I think a LOT of people forget the fact that just because it's IN the game, doesn't mean you HAVE TO interact with it too. There are many, MANY players who play through "romance heavy" games like BG3, The DA and ME games, and Fallout 4, and never even interact with a companion romantically. All it takes is choosing the "I don't see you that way" option or avoiding the heart icon on the dialogue options. 🤷 Why remove a feature that only *increases* the amount of sales and helps the studio thrive?!

In addition, yes it can be added, but if we have opportunities to add more story content, it would be preferable... There are a lot of separate Romance games who focus much better 😂 Take, for example BG3 - Romance there took too much content time, and because of that chapter 2, 3 didn't had too much content I would have better meet more interesting characters with backstory, than will focus on Romance when snail is crowning in your brain....

When I think back to what I liked about baldurs gate 1&2 it was mostly the gameplay, worldbuilding and the story being told. I don't remember actually playing for the npcs, I soloed them several times and did a couple of playthroughs with parties.

They do matter. It's one of the reasons I chose these games. But, I have to admit that romances in games are pretty underdeveloped. They are often mechanical and one-sided. The best romance in games are probably the ones you encounter in Mass Effect and the Witcher games (Yennefer's was pretty romantic actually, sitting on the ship after defeating the djinn). Judy Alvarez romance in Cyberpunk 2077 was also quite well made, very atmospheric. In Baldur's Gate 3 I would vote for Minthara. But it demands an evil playthrough. Minthara has a very deep personality.

Romance is inherently interesting.

I wouldn't have enjoyed Dragon Age Inquisition and Baldur's Gate 3 without romancing Solas and Astarion. They have amazing stories.

Games can have both but too many people expect romance these days as a given. Too much Bioware and BG3. I for one am looking forward to Avowed, with or without romances.

I love seeing character development and roleplaying, romances are a way to have both.

I remember having discussions about this with a fellow RPG gamer about the whole concept of romance in RPG games. It certainly depends on the RPG in general...and interestingly, she told me that instead of her as a player romancing one of the companions, she wants RPGs to give her more options to play the matchmaker! Basically, she wants more opportunities in RPGs to have a player make choices to have their companions date each other.

This is just my take. The space opera/fantasy opera theme feels like I'm reading a book, but I'm actually a part of it. I don't really get into games where I cannot play a female since I am female. Romance is important to me in the playthrough and it is wonderful to have choices. Story is important to enjoying the experience. If a game is written well, it will have longevity and I may play it over and over again, like reading that favorite book over and over again. And it all started with KOTOR. I was not a gamer, but a Star Wars fan. The immersion comes with being invested in the relationships that you can build in that world, like staying up all night reading because you cannot put the book down. I'm discouraged by the way things have been going. What we are seeing in games is an extension of what is happening in the real world. Escapism is no longer available unless you slide into the past. This new reality is a bitter place.

Another important aspect are romances that do not include you. Aylin and Isobel in BG3 come to mind. In the end RPGs should give you options to roleplay and that includes romances, rivalries, hate-love relationships etc. ME3/BG3 put them on the forefront because those are "companion/party"-centric games which makes them fit very well.

If you are going to have a story with realistic characters, then the possibility of romance has to be included. But romance does not have to been sexual encounters, nor even smooching. It can be just clear friendship, leaving the details of the private relationship to the player's own imagination.

Can't remember if there was any sort of romancing pre Skyrim, it's just fluff in any case.

I find romance essential in party-based RPGs, especially as it encourages me to change my class or team choices based on what compliments the love interest, who’ll be a party mainstay of that playthrough. I’d never willingly take some RPG companions if I wasn’t romancing them, outside of their specific quests, Astarion and Minthara being the most recent examples, along with having to make the evil/selfish choices I otherwise wouldn’t to earn their approval when in a relationship with them. It’s actually the defining aspect for my choices every time I plan a new playthrough of the first two Baldur’s Gate games, considering who my BG2 love interest will be, which companions compliment their class and won’t have intra-party conflicts, along with which gender/race/class I can be to romance them (RIP dwarves) and which might also fill any holes in the party composition.

I'd like to add that in the end, if those games impact people so much it is precisely because they are focused on the other characters, your companions, that's how they create the most memorable stories, that's how they make the RPG that stick the most. That's why even though Skyrim is one of the games I spent time playing the most, I think most of the fandom can agree they didn't care much for the story, no matter how much of lore nerds they are (I know I am and it still applies). So yes, even if Avowed is indeed a very interesting and beautiful game, the story probably won't be as impactful as those who chose to focus on characters. By the way, this very point does apply to all kinds of stories, from novels to movies to TV shows too, not just video games. What people remember the most were the impactful moments and bonds between the characters. Ask any fan of The Lord of the Rings to tell you one of their favorite scenes and it's probably one of those with a lot of drama, feelings, character development and relationships. (ex: "For Frodo!", "Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't.", "'I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you", "Fly, you fools!", Boromir's death, etc.)

I'm pretty sure you can romance the Tyranny companions in the DLC they made.

I don't really mind if an RPG has no romance if they're fun to play. I can think of Disco Elysium, Wasteland 3 and Encased as examples. But I just think romance is a huge content addition. I'll do more replays with games that have romances. I don't buy games that often. So I need to factor replayability when buying. Like how many paths, character builds, and yes, romance would factor into it.

I love when a companion's personal quest ties in so well with the main story, and if that companion speaks to you in terms of looks, personality and vibe, then a romance option with them takes the story to a whole new level. I love that I could marry Alistair in DAO and become his consort queen. Here's a guy who always considered himself a bastard child, practically abandoned to the templar order and rescued from it by the Wardens, that turns out to be a bastard _prince_ who can reclaim his birthright by ascending to the throne. **chefs kiss** Also in DA2, to romance Anders and to support him in his fight for mage freedom in a game built on the duality of templars versus mages and the injustices of the Circle of Magi and the abuse of blood magic by mages out of control. Here's a guy who has been abused by templars for years, who attempted to escape the Circle 7 times, each time facing a more severe punishment, until the Warden Commander meets him in Amaranthine and literally holds his life in their hands. Either to give him to the templars for execution, or to conscript him for the Wardens. Then in Kirkwall he's single-handedly running a free clinic in Darktown, while he's also the ghost writer of the mage underground and actively helps to free more mages from the Gallows. Depending on your friendship or rivalry, he can either find safety in your friendship/love to remain himself despite being possessed by a spirit of Justice, or be driven to suicidal idealization by a Hawke that gaslights him about his own trauma to the point he loses his mental battle against Justice. Whether you agree with him or not, Anders' quest is at the core of DA2's plot and I love to romance him for that (and to be fugitives together in the aftermath.) And in DAI there's Solas... the unassuming, seemingly humble and all-too-knowledgeable elven apostate mage whose counsel and input seems to be exactly what you need to face the problem of the Breach and the rifts in the Veil throughout southern Thedas. So you take him along in your active party and through his banter you realize that he's more passionate than his schooled exterior lets you see. He calls out Vivienne for endorsing the Circles and their cruelty, he calls out Bull about the mind-slavery of the Qun, he praises Cassandra for being an honest warrior who knows when to step aside to give the leadership of the Inquisition to new hands, he's frustrated at Sera's willing ignorance and hostility about all things elven history and culture, he fiercely speaks in favor of keeping Cole in the Inquisition and reaffirms time again that spirits _are_ in fact people, is heartbroken when one of his oldest spirit friends, Wisdom, is summon against its will twisting its original purpose and turning it into a demon... and he may even fall in love against his better judgment with someone who at first he thought was nothing more than a shadow of what elves used to be (in his time.) When we learn of his real identity, then all pieces fall into place and you are left pondering what his year in the Inquisition meant for him, a thousands-years-old ancient elf and one of the Dalish's most feared myths and the cause of most of their superstitions: the trickster god, the Dread Wolf. Fen'Harel. How can I not look forward to the continuation of his story in DA The Veilguard that has him at the center of its plot? He's a fascinating character and the knowledge that we can also recreate our canon Inquisitor in the game, makes me wonder what role will she play, specially if she romanced him in DAI👀

What worries me is the ommision of romance and the inability of obsidian to compromise on this for their vision leading to their closure. Microsoft has been shutting the doors on studio after studio. We could lose a legend in RPGs because of this. Love as a motivation or story element is often a satisfying or dramatic draw to your story. With RPGs being about making meaningful choices about the world and your character, i think romance is a core part of that.

Some people really like it. I couldn’t care less. I like the option just to ignore it and just get on with the interesting bits. My wife enjoys that aspect and it’s one reason Dragon Age is her one and only game franchise.

Yes, romance does matter, BioWare should get the trophy because of their story telling was very in depth and feel for the characters. Nowadays most of the new AAA RPG you don't care so much for characters. Even Cyberpunk 2077 romance still lose out to Mass Effect romance. Hats off to Old BioWare writers.

Knew that Mass Effect was a space opera, but didnt quite know that opera would be the category of games that id be most interested in or be most appealing to me. pretty curious as to what the differences are between an Epic and an Opera, other than say size.

Interesting discussion... For me, story rich RPG's come in different styles, and although I like romance in them, it's not necessarily a game breaker... Unless it's included but done poorly... I can play a party based story rich RPG and still enjoy it if the game is fun and has a good story, even without romance... I think adding good romance options can enhance the story and experience if done properly... Some examples: Starfield's romances are a bit dry and far too short in scope for the most part... They are not super bad, but honestly, they could have just been friendships and not hurt the game... Whereas gamed like BG3, the romances are deeper with higher quality... Which makes the companion arcs even better... Mass Effect and Dragonage games have some interesting and fun romance options, which add to the companions arcs as well as the main story... So, you have variance in style and quality from game to game... It really depends on how much effort the developers put into those aspects and if they make sense for the game...

Some of the games that stick most in my memory are games that included romances. Alistair and Cullen from Dragon Age. Kaiden from Mass Effect. Carth from KotOR. Gale from BG3. They wear a lovely enhancement to the story and we’re done so well. Some games don’t take the same care and I do not enjoy those. Mass Effect was special. The relationships in that game with all companions, culminating in the Citadel DLC (chef’s kiss). Super memorable, anchoring that game forever in my top tier. It is replayable for that reason alone.

Romance in games gives the quest a more grounded feel as people going on a quest together are naturally going to get closer or have conflicts.

People can say whatever they want about modern day/back in the day type of stuff. The first western RPG that did romances with companions is BG2 (BG1 didn't have those) by Bioware. And ever since, Bioware followed their formula, and everyone just decided to follow the Bioware formula. For better or worse. What stands out in BG2 is the complexity of the relationship, even for the "back in the day" game, and how it explores all sorts of different topics that aren't explored today. I mean, two of your main companions are married, other have pre-existing relationship "before" the game's story (friendships/rivalries). And then Jaheira's husband tortured to death and she is a widow dealing with grief, while also having pretty complex personal quest, top this sh*t, widow romance who is older than Gorion's ward by 20 years. What I like about BG2 specifically as a staple for companions, is that companion won't join because you have people they hate in your party already, or you can convince some of them, but take your time, listen to their "fun banter" like in any Bioware game, but travel enough and there is going to be a fight to the death (and no checks to prevent it, I mean to the death), or they would leave because you helped or didn't help certain companion. The presented complexity is still unmatched in my opinion. Miranda and Jack bickering in ME is nothing in comparison to Viconia vs Keldorn. In this regard BG3 is close to being faithful to it roots, although much simplified and avodiable, which I don't think I like (I needed Minthara for all those who asked for "knock out" version straight up murder some "good" character in the heat of the argument). Romances are just additions to great relationships, and ever since BG2 any game is to top BG2 complexity and brave approach to cutting/dying/conflicting companions (I would say the best attempt was DA2, for all its flaws as an RPG in a first place).

Best as always. Keep it up.

No, but I also don't play dating simulators or gamble for anime waifus in gacha games. I just want a storyline that makes sense for the character. I have no desire to rub virtual oil on Nick Valentine.

Romance are necessary adds to realism…..In BG3 my Tav should be able to tap all the female companions plus Afira and Lakrissa, Araj

what's absolutely important not to forget is that, even if it's the best romance ever written and mapped, and if it's a good rpg, a pc still must have an option to turn that romance away and not to be robbed of content. so, in the end rp element is still the only thing what truly matters.

I would say it only matters in JRPG which is baked into the genre, as in the romance itself often plays an important role in the plot. A lot of RPG genres like dungeon crawlers (Wizardry, Might and Magic), Souls types, immersive sim (Deus Ex, Elder Scrolls) do not need romance at all. Not even CRPG needs it as shown by Disco Elysium. It is a leftover trope from Hollywood movies that an adventure needs some kind of romance for the hero to feel complete.

If I couldn’t romance Astarion I would riot, but that’s because he’s so well written. If the companions suck then I won’t care if I can romance them or not.

Depends on the RPG. For Dragon Age I would say it matters to a degree since it helps define who your character is. But for me it's not essential. My Hero "romanced" Anora, who technically isn't even an official romance in Origins. My Champion romanced Sebastian, who is without question the most underdeveloped and topical "romance" of them all in DA2. And my Inquisitor romanced Cassandra, who I myself don't find attractive as she's designed in DA:I. None of the characters in Veilguard are aesthetically pleasing either. If there are no romance options outside the party, then my Rook probably won't romance any of them. Each of them being "pan" is also a major negative point. I think BG3 had the right idea with the customized romance option, though the story for it wasn't quite implemented properly.

It's the relationships that keep me playing and replaying a game. An RPG with no romance just feels kind of lifeless.

Romances can be some of the best parts of the games bad ones can be annoying but the best ones are so good so keep them coming

If it doesn't worsen the game (and why should it in most cases really, nobody forces you) I enjoy them. It allows you to have this extra connection with your favorite companion. Also glad you mentioned the garrus broromance, romanced Tali, but garrus was and remains my absolute favorite, both romanced and unromanced. As for deadfire, gotta agree too, they were kinda meh romance wise, general writing was good but the most interesting one imo was Ydwyn and she was not even a full companion or a romance option.

I don't need it to enjoy a game but it's definitely a nice addition. Absolutely loved the romance(s) in all Dragon Age games and BG3.

I prefer that romances be an option in my RPGs but if they are not there it doesn’t stop me from buying them. If they are done, it can add a different layer to the game which I appreciate.

Depends on the quality of the writing (and personal taste). The only playthrough of Dragon Age Origins that felt 'right' to me was the one in which I played a male mage elf and romanced Morrigan. The Dark Ritual hits differently when there are feelings involved, especially since I too was roleplaying as a rather distant and opportunistic character that 'caught the feels' and became a better person as the adventure went on. My warden and morrigan started out as assholes and became a somehow disfunctional but still very wholesome power couple. Would have I enjoyed the game if that option wasn't there? Yes. I did like the other playthroughs I did (romancing different characters or nobody at all) but I am not nearly as fond of those stories as I am of the one involving asshole Warden Surana and sultry witch of the wilds Morrigan having awkwardly animated ritual sex before the final battle.

Its not strictly necessary but it usually feels weird if bonds with companions are any kind of focus of the game and none of them can go anywhere

Well, what do you mean by "matter"? Romance can be a great addition to side story and encourage replay. It should never "matter" in the sense of the main story, it should be completely skippable. It should only "matter" in the sense of additional story depth. If your brand is known for having romances then your customer base will expect them and leaving them out has a good chance of upsetting your fanbase to some extent. There aren't too many movies of any genre that completely opt out of romance in their stories, and if you're writing a RPG with a grand story it's not a bad idea to include it as optional "filler" content at the very least.

Generally play games to explore, fight, blow off some steam from a bad day. Can honestly take it or leave elements like that in a game. I get sick of every character in a game being 'shipped.' I mean, if that's what you want, good for you, if you don't want it, good for you as well. Can't even bring myself to even consider Veilguard. When it releases, I'll play Origins, which was some of the most badass dark fantasy around.

A good written Romance is between Elly and Fei in Xenogears for example.

My opinion on this is simple: It depends. In a Bethesda type exploration rpg or a game with a set story or non-custom character type deal, I don't really think romance matters half the time. Tbh, the main gameplay loops in those don't have a lot to do with your companions if you have any. In a game like starfield or Fallout romance honestly feels forced to me personally. Dialogue just isn't that deep in those games and I'm personally not drawn to it. But in a party based game, I think it's just an industry standard because it's just immersive. If Characters are close and live together it makes sense they'd catch feelings for each other. That said I think BG3 takes it a bit far by making everyone horny for Tav, but in Dragon Age or some of the owlcat games like Rogue Trader, it's just nice to have it as an option. You don't have to, the game doesn't even neccassarily push you in that direction, but it makes sense for it to be an option. It's not needed, games like Outer Worlds are fine, but romance paths would just make the game better in the sense that it's just more gameplay, more options, and more replay value. Either way, that's my hot cake on this. I prefer it, but I don't need them.

Yes.... next question...

Millennials have grown up on romance in RPGs, the rest of us have grown up playing a game with story and lore that are engaging, the romance and crafting came along as plusses. If an RPG series has a certain feature baked in then we expect it, if not then it isn't Armageddon that it isn't there. Dragon Age for example had brothels for the first two installments but DAI was devoid of them probably because of the ultra religious theme so I cross my fingers that DAV has them again cause once again they were a feature that has become part of that existing world.

Its one of those things that isnt exactly nessecery but it would be strange it it wasn't there at all Also i think having all companions open to both genders is great for immersion, you can just make up your own head canon for the companions sexualities, i usually make female characters and romance female companions but it sucks in older rpgs since in those days most companions are just straight. I also don't mind companions like sten in origins having no romance at all at most he respects you and i wouldn't have it any other way Romance in rpg is i would say 25 percent of a characters development and its fun to see how each romance plays out, i have one character for each companion in dragon age origins

To me it's all about story and roleplay opportunities i am also a guy who's always enjoyed romantic journeys

Have you had the chance to play Outer Worlds? I think that game is sort of the baseline of what avowed is going to be. I hope that it will go a bit beyond what that game did, but there's a lot of really well designed stuff in it. It also had no romance, but it did have a questline where you assist one of the companions get into a relationship and it was incredibly sweet and well done. I also think of Iovara from the first Pillars game, where you could say that she was your romantic partner, and inspite of the character barely being in the game, you really feel like your character and her share an incredible bond by the time you actually meet her. They can really cook on that front when they want to. I think these are refreshing ideas for how to do romance in games without it really eating up a ton of your storyspace and play time, thereby dominating all discourse once the game is done.

Technically, there was a romance in The Outer Worlds, it just didn't directly involve your protagonist. I really did enjoy helping Parvati romance Junlei, though.....especially the scene in the bar after they first met.

I like to think the middle ground for all these developers would actually be Larian Studios; they haven’t been around as long as these other studios but for the two games that actually had romances, they’ve hit out of the park. They made BG3’s romances which were mostly great, and Divinity Original Sin 2 had some that were just as good. Of course there’s some weaker ones out of the group, those being The Red Prince, Gale and The Emperor (though I can’t blame the Red Prince because there’s actually a prophecy in-game for it so it’s built into his character but the option is still there for a Fem Lizard run). There was real thought in those romances, and it really shows..

I wouldn't say it's absolutely essential, but I really like it. Yes, most of the time it's cheesy, it's a bit self-serving, and it panders to the player, but I'm not going to be ashamed to say I very much enjoy it when done well. But it has to be something that actually ties into the story rather than just being some checkbox that has just been marked for the sake of it. They can pretty much change the way you connect to characters and even the story entirely. For me, BG2 wouldn't be the same without Viconia, Kotor wouldn't be the same without Bastilla, and DAO wouldn't be the same without Morrigan. It simply is what it is. In all honesty I like cRPG stories to be my character's story and how it connects to the world. Romance really adds to that. Not the world's story and how it connects to my character. It's just my personal preference. I sense the latter philosophy is hugely prevalent with the anti-romance crowd and was mostly dominant throughout the 2010s.

The thing is, my favorite thing in RPG is deep relationships and interactions with my party members. Typically when there is that, there is also romances and vice-versa, so it's not necessarily the romances, it's the relationships.

I think romance in the game is fine but it depends on the type of story and RPG you want to create. In RPG's where there is no character development between you in the characters you meet but you randomly romance them that's awkward but for games like BG3 where there is character development and bonding then I think romance is good. It really depends on the direction you want the game to be.

I think it depends on the scope of the rpg and what the core ethos of the game play is. Elden ring, no, balders gate 3 yes. But simultaneously a game like elders scrolls is more in the middle and you can choose to indulge or not. It varies.

It is nice to have an option, but anyone can ignore it. I do prefer it, I like to even have lot of choices XD

Romance in games is a tricky subject. If it is done well it can greatly enhance role play and immersion but the problem is that it is rarely ever done well, even games that a lot of people rank in their top ten are very shallow and superficial and aren't much more than tagged on glorified one night stands. I hadn't put much thought into it until I played a game that set the bar so high it makes most other games look amateurish in comparison. I am talking about Artyom and Anna's relationship in The Metro Series. The key word being relationship and not sexsimshit.😅 And that makes all the difference.

If it's done right then romances can add to the game and story as long as the game story and romances are written well

In real life, I am asexual/aromantic; I have made it to the age of 53 without ever being in a relationship, and I am perfectly happy with this situation. In video games, I do not consider romance necessary or even desirable in many cases, but if it serves the overall story and/or if the romance arc makes for an interesting story, then it can be worth pursuing it. Alternatively, if the romance has little going for it in terms of the story but pursuing it can result in an advantage in the game, then I might pursue it, but I will not feel invested in it. I thought of Skyrim during this video, and I'm not surprised that it came up. Romance feels like an awkward addition. It is easy to pursue it with a good number of NPCs, and the end result is that you end up with an NPC at the player house who is thoroughly generic and is only useful as an additional merchant. With all the miscellaneous loot in the game, it is good to have merchants around, so it is worth pursuing the romance simply to acquire another merchant, but there is no story behind it. The few interesting companions and NPCs, such as Serana, are not available as romance options, unfortunately. I think this is a missed opportunity. Skyrim is a great surface level game, but it has no depth. I'm making slow progress through Baldur's Gate 3 since I don't have a lot of time. I see potential for good romance stories there, and I'm still trying to decide which party member's romance story I want to see. I might never have time to play through the game twice, so I probably should choose carefully. Lae'zel seems like an interesting puzzle to unpack, and I'm also feeling curious about Wyll and his troubled past. As for Avowed, I'm not that excited for it. I want Pillars of Eternity 3, not another generic action game. I'm sick of action games. Whether or not there is romance isn't even something I've considered until now, and I don't even care whether or not it is present. I might not even bother with the game because I've become so sick and tired of action games. I've never played a tabletop RPG, but I'm curious and might try it one day. If I do, my real life asexual/aromantic nature will apply to any character that I make, and I will make this absolutely clear to any table that I might join. If they don't want to go along with this, then it isn't the game for me. I simply don't trust other people when it comes to role playing romance, and I don't want to become an unwilling part of a lurid neckbeard erotic fantasy, even if it would make for a good RPG horror story. I might lighten up on this if I got to know a group well and could convince myself that they were all sane and mature people, but I would never role play romance with strangers.

Its a nice break between like missions. Like the Solas romance i thought was done well and brought in a very different experience considering your race and culture and learning more about it. (I dont think i explained it well). Like it gives an extra layer. Though if the game sucks the romance wont be able to save it

I romanced Minthara on my first BG3 play-through, which I liked. However, my next 2 or 3 play-throughs I really didn't bother with the romance very much. When I played Mass Effect 10 years ago I definitely romanced on every play-through, same with DA-Origins. I guess it's just not as interesting for me anymore.

If it is Organic then sure but not forced and not a big production of the product that can take away from the game..

I think it matter because very few game let you have a deep romance and even you have have romance its only one character. A RPG make you feel like you are part of the world and romance help.I dont tkink if a RPG dont have romance its bad game but most of the time its doesnt feel personal for me and alot of people