qloher

Yes please. Would be better to have both, but if I have to chose, I chose writing.

Like all $15 of resources overall ? But, yeah, no one wants this kind of execution here.

Do not want combat focus.

I think Hard is a good enough middle option. No need to go too extreme one way or the other.

What about Fallout 2? Also there are enough bad things about Fallout 3 (just as there are enough good) still I think they've nailed playing after the main plot's ending pretty good in Broken Steel. With recognizable changes in the world and after main plot specific quests.

Certainly I would like to.

Spamming insults now when out of arguments, aren't we? I'm just saying, if you've never been with a woman before a romance in a game is probably more immersive for someone than someone who had been with a woman. What's wrong with that? Not really insulting. It's like the difference between a boy seeing boobs for the first time and the difference between a man seeing them for the thousandth time. Actually I don't even consider the first part to be insulting. It is not overwhelmingly right hence is not a really good argument, but makes perfect sense in some cases. I mean clearly some "never been with a woman before", nothing wrong with that. Yet the second part is where you've clearly dropped the ball.

You logic is invalid, romance simulator is a game genre/sub-genre. Also Planescape and BG2 had romances and are classic.

That's where you are loosing me. Chess = tactics = combat. Not a role play.

I am super serious. Hack and slash from my part was an example of a sub-genre that is considered to be an RPG, but is ultimately all about killing things, collecting loot and leveling, not about actual role play. I treat any other sub-genre that may be not as action centered, yet still too killing things centered, the same. Not as a proper role-playing game. Not for me. Planescape was a proper role-playing game in my book and it is possible to complete it only engaging into battle like three times for the entire game if you want to. Because it is character/dialogue/story centered as opposed to battle centered. It is true it is possible to create a deep proper RPG plot without romance options for the player character, to strip the whole game world of romance would be much harder, but possible I think if you strive enough. Still romance can enhance the immersion greatly if it is proper an done right.

I'm serious. I perceive RPGs as role-playing games where I can role play my character as an actual person, not as a mere killing machine. I personally have zero interest in dungeon crawlers and Diablo-eskue hack and slashes no matter how old or new they are. I like my characters and plots deep. Just like in Planescape for example. And what was the central question of that game, can you recall it? "What can change the nature of a man?" Also romances doesn't have to be reduced to "a couple of conversations and a sex scene". l3loodangel I remember seing this when ME3 came out along with MrBtongue's, Archengeia's and smudboy's videos. For the record, I myself hate Mass Effect 3 with passion as the next guy here, probably even more. Has been ridiculing the hell of BW's "art" defence forever now. Still don't let their fallacy to undermine the whole concept of art for you. Well, of cause it's up to developers to ultimately decide, not up to romance supporters on forums. Nor up to romance opposers. We only can voice our personal opinions on the matter, all the more so we were asked to.

But if something is rarely being done good it doesn't mean the whole idea should be discarded period. Everything starts somewhere. Game industry is how much old really? Imagine if movie industry ditched romance plots altogether after having a couple of first black-white silent movies about love that tanked? That would be insane, wouldn't it? Also if there is someone who can break the tendency, do the job right and show the world how should it be properly handled, it is Obsidian. And what is a better occasion than a Kickstarter project with no publisher over their shoulders?

People who are against romance, I believe, deep inside simply do not perceive RPGs as a proper full-fledged form of art, but rather something else, even if they don't fully recognize this position of theirs. Otherwise how can one seriously deny a medium that is supposed to examine human nature in all it's manifestations to properly touch a subject as crucial to sentient beings as love?

I like to be able to kill everyone, companions included, Fallout-style. This option has been presented in recent Fallout New Vegas by Obsidian, so I see no obstacles preventing them from implementing such a mechanic again.

I support this. Also we have the same concept evolved in Arcanum. Also I prefer Fallout/Arcanum 2D stylized map over SoZ 3D map.

I have no strong feelings one way or the other, I will roll with whatever judgment Obsidian guys made on that matter. Hell, I'll be fine with magic nukes fantasy cold war scenario as long as game's characters and dialogues are good and my decisions matter.

No consoles please.

I know. And I'm happy about it. Guess we had a misunderstanding here.

I like this approach, it worked beautifully for me in Fallout 2. In 90% of walkthroughs I had maxed charisma and a party of five companions, but there was that one time I did a solo run and it also worked just fine. Arcanum is another example of this. When a game tells you that you MUST have at least 5 people with you or that you MUST be a lonely adventurer, it kinda breaks the immersion by throwing game's mechanics in your face. It's not terrible, but it's there. Having no such restrictions adds to believability.

Exactly this. Also that does not exclude a possibility of option 1 and 2 (I personally am not interested in homosexual romances but I agree it's only fair to have those for people who roll that way; also we don't need cleavages everywhere, but having them occasionally here and there where it's appropriate and makes sense is always welcomed).

Planescape: Torment would be my top answer, then Fallout 1/2/NV, then KotOR 2.

Maybe you are right. Still I was writing my post as an answer to OP accordingly to his vision presented, keep this in mind.

Wasn't I clear enough? I would love to make sure I'm just telling you that an ability or inability to make sure is something that should be scripted by developers in-game in order for players to exercise this. Player is restricted by options presented, I may be willing to make sure as hard as humanly possible but if there is no according code presented my wishes does not matter. Should authors decide to have an ability for PC to have children and approach this task with a prejudice that everyone likes children and wants them when falls in love, than there is not much I can do about it unless I mod or something, also my RP gets undermined (again, unless I mod). And I do not want it. That's all.

In that case let's change it to "humble" if you want good sir/madam. It does not matter. Well, this is exactly the requirement I do not want to be imposed on me. And that is exactly what I do want. So I voice an opinion that we need some kind of an elixir as an option present in-game in this case.

Options are always ok, just make sure we proud chilldfrees can avoid kids altogether without a need to avoid romances.