The issue with issues with romance in games.

TL;DR Most games include romance as a feature and not a pillar or theme of their game; so critiquing their romance mechanics is basically just nit-picking. Developers should be free to include romance mechanics in their games and not be shamed for it (unless it's the focus of their game and they drop the ball).

I've seen a few discussions come up recently about how romances are done in games. The critical consensus seems to be that they are done poorly but this discussion has been going on for at least 15 years. But that begs the question as to why things haven't changed and why gamers accept the status quo.

The critical critique of the romance in a CRPG is that they are 'unrealistic' (which should tell most game designers everything they need to know). They tend to lament the collection of 'kindness coins' and the treating of romance as a reward as problematic. The idea you can just say the right words and 'win' at romance as being reminiscent of toxic stereotypes and objectification. Some developers have even taken to calling romance in games contrived. While these are all a kind of true; the criticism persists unaltered.

Kindness Coins was a game jam project that came out in 2013. It's a charming game and I appreciate what it does. The only thing that dismays me is the conversation hasn't changed much beyond what it said over 10 years ago.

I think the reason why things haven't changed is something that I like to call (in my head) the 'Hollywood Reality'. It's realistic in the movies, it's simplified and serves the story. Just as in a movie the hero never reloads, in a videogame the hero never has to manage half-spent magazines of ammo.  And the romance is the same way. The protagonist gets the (obligatory) love interest; or in games the player is able to use the systems of the game to romance their favorite romance option.

And that's an important point. They use the systems of the game. The parts of romance that can not be shown through the game are left absent. When a player invests time and chooses romantic interest toward their chosen love interest that is analogous to the time and sacrifice it takes to be in a relationship with someone (to think of someone other than yourself).

I think this is where the developer, the critic, and the player all misunderstand each other. The developer wants to create the best game they can; the critic sees the limits in how relationships are implemented; the player has a desire for expression. And this misunderstanding is especially true when the game isn't even about romance. It's usually about some heroic story with warrior wizards and psychic cyborgs and ninjas with rocket launchers. It's not a romance game about romance (or even if it is, its not a game about the complexities of romance. Rom-coms are not a deep analysis of the imbalances in modern relationships; maybe what you are looking for is a prestige film). Basically a CRPG with romance is not a game about the complexities of romance; it is romance as a part of a larger game.

A polygon article recently made the same old arguments against romance in games and prominently featured Baldur's Gate 3 as having the same old 'problems'. But as a CRPG, romance is not the games focus. Why not platform the prestige games trying to do romance better?

The real problem seems to be a misunderstanding of what the inclusion of romance is for. The critic seems to be asking mass market games to be more like indie 'prestige' games. They are asking for explorations of what a relationship can be. They want representations of differing types of relationships and to examine the intersectionality of romance within broader cultural contexts. They want to see games be different and find a deconstruction of romance that elevates the artform.

But the player isn't any less noble. They are looking for romance as a subplot. Something that deepens their connection to events and can be jeopardized to raise the stakes (or frame other concepts). It's part of the game, not the full game. The romance option they choose (as a-romantic as that sounds) is a part of their expression in the game. And there is an aspect of wish fulfilment but no more so than being a bad-ass cybermancer who doesn't play by the rules. Why shouldn't the protagonist get the love interest?

I'm not advocating that every game with romance should converge on having a playersexual polycule (well, I'm at least not going to admit it). What I want is for players, critics, and developers to understand the role of romance in the game they are playing, criticizing, or making. If a game isn't 'capital A about romance' criticizing its romance kind of sounds like you are missing the point or wanting the game to be something it is not or just nit-picking. And even if a developer added deep critical commentary on romance... if that was not what the game was about it's going to be confusing and probably not get the development time it needs. It's probably going to disappoint the critics who want to see that and annoy the players who don't. To the player it can feel like a rug-pull or a gotcha when the game starts testing romance topics that the player didn't think this was on the table.

If you want to make a game about the romance, about all the confusing complexities of people falling in love; go for it. But also be aware of the type of game you are making; it's prestige. It's more for the voice of critics than the whims of players (and that doesn't mean players wont enjoy it; they just need to know that's what they are getting into). But also be very well aware that you probably are not going to get AAA sales numbers out of a prestige game. You can do whatever you want, just please have realistic sales expectations.

With all of that said, let's have a little more love for the games with romance. Lets critique games for what they are trying to do rather than what they wished they had done. Lets let the prestige games have their moments without denigrating games who include romance as feature instead of a pillar.

Hey, I'm as surprised as you are that I was able to find relevant images of Tiefling devil-ladies for all of  images in this post.

Level Design Jams

Here is another blog post because this is the season for things to come back from the dead 🎃🦇👻.

For the last few years I've been participating in Steve Lee's Level Design Jams. I want to do a videogame something every year and it has been a great excuse to do that. Although I'm not sure how successful I have been; I never feel bad as long as I'm still 'getting on the board'. My day job is not videogame related (software engineering for websites and other webstore stuff for scientist people).

Here is the list of the ones I have done and how I rate them of 7.


LDJ4-Mission30 - A mod of Deus Ex and probably the best of the bunch. This is considered peak 'Tomtent' (Tom+Content). 6/7 because I can still think of more I want to do with it.

LDJ10 - Memory Jar - A quake map with a little bit of modding to make it do what I want. I feel like I executed on what I wanted to do but I'm not sure what I did was any good. 4/7 because I could've done something better.

LDJ8 - Turnin Urban - I'm torn because I feel like this one has probably the weakest level design but explores a lot of things I think will come back in more Tomtent (Vending Machines, ₱esos, Camera). Made me think more about cameras and first person games. 5/7 could use more level design (almost as good as the dark night?).

Orb - 7DFPS 2023 - Not really my best work; actually this has pushed me to focus on UE5 a little more and try to work smarter and with more modular content (reuse of content is what made this possible). 3/7 formative for how bad it is; an exploration of the procedural that failed.

LDJ6 - Orb - Probably my worst work; I think I just had to make too many compromises for time to be satisfied with what I came up with. While UE gives you a lot, it basically drops you off at the bottom of a mountain and you still have to climb all the way up. 2/7 it could be worse but I hold myself to a higher standard than this.