Oh, I do think that romance is logical. After all its purpose is to ensure the survival of the genes. It’s just that the romance algorithms and the hardware they’re running on have been hotfixed for millions of years so there are insane amounts of technical debt, that make the algorithm hard to figure out.

And in romance movies there is always a pursuer and a pursued party. And, as audience, we can clearly identify the correct behavior for the pursuer. But, if you identify with the pursued party, then these romance movies will feel like it’s all chance, because the pursued often has very little agency.

A scoring system just formalizes this behaviour. And in video games, you as a main character have all the in-game agency. A romance, that would move the agency to an NPC will feel like the “OMG it’s you, the grand champion” guy from Oblivion, or like a courier desperately trying to talk to you no matter where you are.

And I generally don’t have an issue with local LLMs in video games, but I really don’t think there is a way to make them work. Dialog trees are a really good way to give a player some control, while not overwhelming them with choice.

LLMs might work by allowing characters to acknowledge things you have done outside their own little storylines.

And, sure, I can type in my question. But this will be clunky and imo break the flow of the game. And I really don’t want to sit infront of a computer and be talking out loud to some NPCs.

The point about who is telling the story is interesting, especially in regards to ttrpgs.

Because today, video games are everywhere and are telling insanly emotional stories. And to gamers, the guardrails feel natural. After all, they have to be there and have always been there, so the suspension of disbelief includes ignoring that you’re (in ttrpgs terms) on railroads.

But, the old guard has played ttrpgs while video games were in their infancy, so they never expected the GM to give them a framework, in which they could do everything, and that still produces a story that would make J.R.R. Tolkien give standing ovations.

They, instead, assumed that with clever incentives, the players would themselves want to play and create the stories themselves. As you pointed out, the GM would simply offer tools for the players to tell their stories.

But, to tie this back into romance in video games: Sure, you can roleplay that yourself (if you write it down, you have created fanfic) but, like in ttrpgs, it’s not ‘your’ character and you’re not the GM.

Some groups might play that way, everyone being a quasi gm who can tell a part of the story freely and then handing the scene back to another player.

But in most groups, I think, players want to control only one character (themselves). To them it feels violating to either take away/control someone elses character or having your character be played by someone else.

And in video games, the only character you have is your main character. Thus roleplaying other characters is like taking away the GMs NPCs.

But, your point does work in games like The Sims, where, even though the dialog/romance options are limited, you can add back that level of meaning through roleplaying. Or in games like the elder scrolls, where the storylines aren’t intertwined. But Cyberpunk 2077 does pull your romantic interest into optional endings, so the characters behavior might then no longer align with your interpretation, because the game took back control of its characters.

This is a really weird way to argue a weird point. I think, the main issue is, most games are closer to boardgames than movies. And the author places them too close to movies.

And you can build boardgames for romance, sure. But, unless the romance is part of the core game loop, it’s something that breaks the flow of the game. So it gets abstracted away, or the romance is expressed in terms of the core game mechanics. Which, in video games are often reaching the next scene, dialog trees or gaining stat points.

And, even if you think they’re closer to movies, then most video games are closest to action movies. And here the word romance isn’t used. It’s just renamed love interest and is often just the price for saving the world, but the core ‘mechanics’ are the same.

And most romances will start as fun flings full of hope, not with the nitty-gritty logistics. The logistics will come later, sure. But most Video-Games are set romantically in a few weeks of summer camp, so there is no need to figure out logistics just yet.

Open-World games, that have a character that travels around and meets people as part of their daily lives, sure.

But this argument would apply to games like the Elder Scrolls series. Not Cyberpunk 2077 in which the main character is dying and has only weeks left to live.

But, I do concede that most romances do fall flat once you’ve reached the top. You had your sex-scene and you may have your kisses, your hugs, the new greetings in dialogue, and the characters return to being cardboard in the background. I know it’s hard to implement, but still, it would be nice, if they could then play a larger role in, for example, the main story.

No :)
I agree, that workers’ rights are an important topic, but adding more scope, won’t do either goal any good.

Agreed, the AI doesn’t even respond in first person.

I was trying to get you to question the believe that lazyness is an evolutionary trait. Like the post you replied to said: Find the root cause of your lazyness.

Because it’s almost always not an evolutionary trait, it’s avoiding negative emotions. As you said: Doing dishes (bad) -> do nothing (good) But, with boredom, this would result in this: Doing dishes (bad) -> do nothing (good) -> boredom (bad)

Thus, we get negative emotions again. But we can avoid the final negative emotions by lying on the couch and spending energy looking at a screen. And our chain looks like this: Doing dishes (bad) -> looking at screen (good)

Because being bored is hard. If you want to see how hard it is, decide to just stare at a blank wall for the next 30min-1h instead and watch your brain fight this decision as hard as it can.

Thus saying “I’m lazy” and “being lazy is an evolutionary trait” results in “I can’t do anything about me being lazy”. And that is an easy way to avoid having to face and work through those negative emotions.

So then, which stimuli do you get and don’t get that make you lazy and, for example, stop you from doing the dishes?

If lazyness is an evolutionary trait to conserve energy, why do we get bored (pushing us to spend energy) once we do so?